Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. According to the revision petitioner, he could not be present in court on earlier occasions also because he was laid up after being toppled over by a bull and sustaining fracture to the pelvic bone. The incident happened in April 2007 but he was advised to take rest for three months. A medical certificate was  also produced by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition through his counsel on 04.03.2008 as I.A.No.279/2008 stating that he had to produce certain documents before the Village Office for which he had to get certain documents from the court and he had not received the documents though he applied for the same. It is also contended that only if certified copy of the document is procured from the court, he could produce the same before the Village Office and get documents from the said office. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.279/2008 to remove the suit from the list.

11. In the above circumstances, we find that there are some laches on the part of the petitioner in not getting ready on 04.03.2008 for his examination and not procuring relevant documents on time. But, we find that laches can be compensated by ordering cost to the respondent and petitioner can be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merit. At any rate, absence of petitioner on the previous two postings cannot be taken as a  ground to reject his application for restoration.