Application for restoration

Contention of petitioner was that since notice for hearing of the petition was not delivered to the petitioner, default on the part of the petitioner or his counsel to appear on the date was neither intentional nor deliberate and that dismissal of the case for non-prosecution on the said date, deserved to be recalled

Validity

Notice was issued to the petitioner at his given address

Office copy of the notice had shown that notice was sent to the petitioner at his correct given official address, mentioned in the title of his petition

Case on said date was taken for hearing at 10-30 a.m. and was called again and again, but no one appeared for the petitioner

No intimation was conveyed by counsel for the petitioner for the reason of his failure to attend the matter

Petitioner in his application, had not specifically stated that notice for the fixation of the case was not delivered to him; and the special plea of the non-delivery of the notice to the petitioner for the first time, was taken during submissions when said application was listed for hearing

Application for restoration of the main case being meritless, was dismissed

Consequently application for interim relief pending disposal of said application for restoration of the case having become infructuous, was disposed of accordingly.

Effort by petitioner to reverse that duty of effecting service on to the court, thereby implying an obligation to find an absent party all over the country, was not intended by O.VII, R.19, C.P.C.

Application was dismissed.

Revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and application for restoration of the same was filed about 2 years and 7 months later, without any application for condonation of delay

Plea raised by petitioner was that his absence on the day fixed was due to non-receipt of cause list regarding fixation of the petition by his counsel

Validity

Application for restoration was barred by time and neither application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, had been filed nor application disclosed reasonable cause or sufficient cause for condonation of delay

Non-supply of copy of cause list to advocate of petitioner did not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay

Application was dismissed in circumstances.