1. The petitioner has sought restoration of the original petition which was dismissed for default on 16.01.2012. That order reads as under:
"None present for the petitioner. Even as the petition was dismissed for default on an earlier occasion and restored, only an adjournment was sought on behalf of learned counsel Mr.R.C.Jani by learned counsel Mr.Pritesh Parikh. Even as the matter has been called out twice during the course of the day and the petition is not even sought to be argued on merits, it is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs."
2. According to the present application, learned counsel Mr.Jani was actually arguing on that date before a Division Bench of this Court and hence unable to remain present.
It was seen from the earlier order dated 30.4.2010 in SCA No.11400 of 1994 that the petition had come to be dismissed for default on that date after noticing that several opportunities were given to learned counsel to appear and argue the matter on merits. In fact, the matter was listed on 30.4.2010 pursuant to an earlier order dated 16.4.2010 as under:
"This matter was on board time and again. Matter was earlier listed on 09.03.2010, 26.03.2010, 09.04.2010 and finally today. Even today Mr.Jani requests for time to enable him to place on record the inquiry report. S.O. to 30.4.2010."
3. It is clear from the above record of judicial proceeding that the petitioner had consistently failed in having the petition heard on merits in spite of its pendency for 16 years. Therefore, if the petitioner or his learned counsel had wanted to argue the matter on merits, appropriate priority would have been given and at least time to request the Court to accommodate learned counsel could have been spared. Instead of that, the order of dismissal of the petiton appears to have been invited by choice and in due exercise of discretion. Under such circumstances, the present application is dismissed.
Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake) Top