- (1.) VIDE order, under challenge, application of the petitioner, to restore her suit, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, was dismissed.
(2.) IT is apparent from the records that in that suit, she claimed that she had appeared in some interview in the year 1992, her result has not been declared and the respondents be directed to do the needful. Court has noticed that after issuance of notice, 13 opportunities were granted to deposit process fee etc. and when the petitioner failed to do so, her suit was dismissed. Application, to restore the same was filed after about 5 months of the order passed. IT has not been averred by the petitioner that between this long period of filing the suit in the year 1998 and dismissal of the same in the year 2005, how many times, she has tried to contact her counsel or what efforts were made to proceed further in the suit. No ground is made out to interfere in the order of the Court below.;