- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly nobody appeared on 12.4.2006 when the case was listed so also on 15.4.2006. since it is not relevant, therefore, I need not recapitulate that on earlier occasions also the petitioner had absented in the writ petition. In the present case the only explanation given is that on 12.4.2006 the counsel had gone just for a while, and the case was passed over. It is then stated that he could not go through the cause list of 15.4.2006. In my view, not going through the cause list hardly constitutes any sufficient cause for the absence. Thus no sufficient cause is made out for restoration. The restoration application is, therefore, dismissed.;