1. Heard Mr.Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant.
2. In present application, the applicant has prayed, inter alia, that:-
"6(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the application.
(B) Your Lordship may be please to condone the delay Page 1 of 6 C/CA/4182/2015 ORDER of 63 days caused in preferring the above numbered MCA for restoration in Special Civil Application No. 15832 of 2013."
3. In view of the facts of the case, more particularly the fact that from the record of the main petition, it emerges that until the date on which the order in question i.e. order dated 03.11.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 15832 of 2013 came to be passed, the respondent in main petition had, though served, not entered appearance.
4. In this view of the matter, it appears appropriate to dispose of this application without calling response from the respondent.
5. The applicant seeks that delay of 63 days caused in filing application seeking restoration of the proceedings of the petition may be condoned.
6. Strictly speaking, the applicant has failed Page 2 of 6 C/CA/4182/2015 ORDER to make out satisfactory ground in support of the request to condone the delay. Actually, any reason or justification for not attending the proceedings &/or condoning the delay are not made out.
7. Besides this, it is necessary to note that in the petition is taken out at the stage of Notice i.e. against notice dated 25.06.2014.
8. Ordinarily, the Court would be loath or extremely slow in entertaining the petition against the notice issued by a Bank for recovery of dues or as reminder/notice in respect of willful defaults.
9. Having filed such petition, the petitioner did not prosecute the petition after September- 2014, and therefore, order dated 03.11.2014 came to be passed.
Page 3 of 6
application and prayed for above quoted reliefs.
11. Only on the ground that if at all the petitioner has unjust cause and in the event the cause to prosecute the petition on merits still survives, lest the dismissal of application and thereby, adversely dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-prosecution may adversely affect the cause, without being heard, the Court considers it appropriate to allow one more chance to the petitioner, however, not unconditionally.
12. Therefore, on the condition that the applicant-petitioner, shall pay cost of Rs.2500/- to the High Court Legal Aid Committee, the request/application is granted. 12.1 It is pertinent that this application is cognate to the Civil Application No.4181 of 2015.
The learned advocate, who represent the Page 4 of 6 C/CA/4182/2015 ORDER
undertaking in Civil Application No.4181 of 2015, represents this applicant and in main petition as well. Thus, the parties had the knowledge about the order dated 03.11.2014, however, the applicant, in this application has, without justification caused further delay of almost 50 days. Therefore, the amount towards cost in this case is higher.
13. The application is allowed in terms of Paragraph No.6 and delay of 63 days caused in preferring Misc.Civil Application (Stamp) No.358 of 2015 seeking restoration of the main petition is condoned.
14. It is clarified that this order will take effect only if the petitioner - the applicant pays the aforesaid amount towards cost on or before 15.04.2015.
15. After the amount is paid and the receipt Page 5 of 6 C/CA/4182/2015 ORDER
acknowledging payment is placed on record, then the Misc.Civil Application seeking restoration of main petition may be placed for appropriate orders before the Court on 16.04.2015.
With the aforesaid observation, present application is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Girish Page 6 of 6