ORDER and consequently the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 8.6.2000 the instant application was filed, seeking restoration of the petition. It is stated in the application that the case was not taken up before the interval and the counsel for the petitioner was told that it may be taken up after the Judge is fee from the Division Bench. This is an explanation for non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant. For the applicant's absence, it is stated- that the cause list was received on Saturday and the counsel could not apprise the applicant about the fixation of the case.. In any case, it is submitted that nonappearance is not for deliberate or contumacious reasons but, because of the bona fide, that the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy before another Bench when the case was called for hearing. This application has been vehemently contested the learned counsel for the respondent, has drawn my attention that previously on more than two occasion the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and on one of said occasions, when it was restored on 19.5.1998; this Court passed the following order:- "The petitioner and his counsel shall make it a point to turn up on each and every date so that the case is disposed of expeditiously."
2. Heard. In this application, though the explanation has been given for non-appearance of the counsel, that he was busy before some other Bench and could not appear in the case but, there is no cogent explanation with regard to the non-appearance of the petitioner Averment of the applicant that because the list was received late, thus, the learned counsel could not inform the petitioner about the date of hearing is totally belied by the fact that on 12.4.2000, when the case was adjourned to 5.6.2000, on which date, it was dismissed for non-prosecution; the date was fixed by the Court in the presence of the counsel for the parties; thus, the petitioner's counsel had enough time to know the date on which he had to appearance. Even otherwise, the present application has neither been signed by the petitioner nor he has filed any affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court, if in the power-of-attorney which he had filed, he had an authority on behalf of the applicant to move such an application and to file affidavit.
3. Therefore, keeping in view the conduct of the applicant that this revision petition was previously dismissed for more than two occasion and had been restored. Besides no sufficient cause has been established for non-appearance of the appellant. Moreover, it is a usual practice of this Court that no case is dismissed for non prosecution until it is called for 3 times at different intervals. It is surprising that on each call no one, even the clerk of the counsel did - not inform the Court about his business before some other Bench.
4. In the light of above, I -do not find any sufficient cause, therefore, this application is hereby dismissed.