Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Jyotosna Saha & Anr vs The Serampore Municipality Service & on 22 January, 2014

Author: Arindam Sinha

Bench: Arindam Sinha

                             1



     22.01.14
 1
sm
                           W.P. No. 8481 (W) of 1999
                                 CAN 10549 of 2009

                        Jyotosna Saha & Anr.
                               -vs-
                The Serampore Municipality Service &
                               Ors.


                       Mr. Saudull Abedin

                                           .....for the petitioners

                       Ms. Dipti Bhattacharyya

                                         ....for respondent No. 3

This matter has appeared at the instance of the writ petitioners. It is submitted by Mr. Abedin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the original records of this case stood destroyed upon making a soft copy thereof. At the instance of the writ petitioners the records have been reconstructed from that soft copy.

The record shows that the writ petition was dismissed for default on 30th July, 2009. Mr. Abedin submits that an application for restoration of this matter being CAN 10549 of 2009 was duly filed on behalf of his clients. That application, however, is not traceable. A reconstructed copy of the application has been submitted in court today by Mr. Abedin upon leave being granted.

It appears from the order dated 30th July, 2009 that none appeared when the matter was called on for the second 2 time that day. Mr. Abedin submits that it was due to his other professional engagements requiring travel that he missed keeping track of the matter and it was only in December that he obtained information about the dismissal of the same.

Ms. Dipti Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent No. 3. She too submits that she missed the list on the day when the matter was dismissed for default.

I find that the reason for which the petitioner was prevented from being represented in court at the time when the matter was dismissed cannot be attributed to the litigant. In such circumstances, the application for restoration is allowed. The order dated 30th July, 2009 recalled and the matter is restored to its file and number and the writ petition will appear on 3rd February, 2014.

The application (CAN 10549 of 2009) for restoration is allowed.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)