Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India And Others vs Ashis Chakraborty And Others on 6 January, 2023
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
191 06.01. WP.CT 21 of 2015
2023 With
IA No. CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8745 of 2019)
Ct. No. 04
IA No. CAN 4 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8746 of 2019)
Ab
Union of India and others
Vs.
Ashis Chakraborty and others.
---------------
Mrs. Susmita Saha Dutta.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Mr. Subhajit Roy.
... for the respondents.
Re: CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8745 of 2019) & CAN 4 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8746 of 2019) Interestingly, the two applications being CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8745 of 2019) and CAN 4 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 8746 of 2019) are filed for recalling the order dated 31st July 2019. By the said order dated 31st July 2019, this Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay being CAN 5847 of 2018 and an application for restoration of the writ petition being CAN 5848 of 2018.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners perceived the said order to have independent compartment and filed the aforesaid two applications. The moment the order dated 31st July 2019 is recalled, whatever applications have been dismissed therein would be immediately restored and, therefore, there is no necessity of filing the two separate applications for recalling the each compartment of the same order.
Be that as it may, we do not want to make any further comment thereupon as it lies within the sole wisdom of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners.
2The aforesaid applications have been taken out to recall the order dated 31st July 2019 and restored the applications, which were dismissed for default therein. It has been stated in the said application that the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners was sick and instructed the junior to seek for an accommodation, which, in fact, could not be done and, therefore, for the laches of the Advocate, the litigant should not suffer.
Though the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents oppose the said application but we do not think that the litigant should suffer because of the lapses and laches on the part of the Advocate.
We find that the grounds made in the said application for restoration of CAN 5847 of 2018 and CAN 5848 of 2018 are satisfactory. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed. The order dated 31st July 2019 is hereby recalled. The applications being CAN 5847 of 2018 and CAN 5848 of 2018 are restored to its original file and number.
Let the applications being CAN 5847 of 2018 and CAN 5848 of 2018 be listed after two weeks.
(Harish Tandon, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.) 3