IMPORTANT POINT
Perusal of proceedings reveals that time and again adjournments have been sought by the Petitioner and this reflects non-serious approach and attitude towards the lis which is tantamount to non-prosecution.

ORDER

M.A. No. 486 of 2018 (for restoration)

1. To recapitulate, the District Commission vide its Order dated 07.05.2003 had allowed the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 24.11.2009 had dismissed the appeal. A revision petition was filed before this Commission on 29.04.2010. It was dismissed in default vide this Commission’s Order dated 22.04.2015. A restoration application, being M.A. No. 486 of 2018, was filed on 08.06.2018.

On 08.11.2019 it was ordered that notice of the M.A. be issued to the respondent.

On 13.03.2020 it was ordered that notice on the M.A. be issued again, the notice be ‘dasti’ in addition and the petitioner shall ensure the due ‘dasti’ service of the notice on the respondent without fail before the next date of hearing.

‘Dasti’ service of notice has not been effected.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner once again seeks adjournment and submits that the ‘dasti’ notice could not be procured or served on the respondent, as was directed by this Commission.

3. Ordinarily this Commission would have acceded to the request of the counsel but the chronology of the events and the prolix period of time for which the matter has been kept pending dissuades us to take a liberal view.

It is relevant to note that the revision petition relates to the year 2010 and was dismissed in default in 2015 by this Commission. After lapse of a few years, the restoration application was moved in 2018, which is pending disposal till date.

A perusal of the proceedings reveals that time and again adjournments have been sought for one reason or the other. Notice issued to be served on the respondent remains unserved even till date. In fact, in order to expedite the proceedings, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to serve the notice ‘dasti’. The order of issuing notice on the restoration application was passed by this Commission in the year 2019, the order of serving the notice ‘dasti’ was passed in the year 2020, almost a year and a half back, but today the learned counsel appearing in the matter once again, instead of contributing to the progress of the case or enabling us to decide the restoration application, is only seeking further opportunity and adjournment.

4. We are of the considered view that all this reflects a non-serious approach and attitude towards the lis and is tantamount to non-prosecution. After all, a matter cannot be kept pending for a limitless period of time and must be allowed to come to its logical culmination.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any good or reasonable reason to allow adjournment and deem it to be a fit case where the restoration application deserves to be disallowed in non-prosecution.

6. Accordingly, the restoration application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.