The court held that failure to adequately explain a significant delay in filing a restoration application justifies its rejection.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya for the applicants and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent-State.

2. Though opportunities had been given to learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya since September, 2024, as found in the orders dated 11.09.2024, 09.12.2024, 13.01.2025, 21.01.2025, 29.01.2025 and 18.02.2025, it appears that nothing substantial had been done, more particularly to explain the delay of 2021 days which had occurred in filing the present application for restoration.

3. While it would appear that an affidavit of the applicant has been tendered across the bar by learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya inter alia stating that while the matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.12.2016, a restoration application had been filed on 10.01.2017 and the same came to be disposed of on 30.01.2018 and whereas it is mentioned in the affidavit "The order passed by this Hon'ble Court on January 30, 2018 is not traceable. The copy of the status report mentioned in the website of this Hon'ble Court in relation to Misc. Civil Application (For Restoration) No. 1 of 2017 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to this affidavit." It is further stated in the affidavit that since the order dated 30.01.2018 is not available, the deponent is not in a position to make any statement. It is further mentioned that the petitioner has preferred another restoration application being Misc. Civil Application (For Restoration) No. 1 of 2023 and the said application was taken up for hearing by this Court on June 01, 2023 and whereas time for removal of office objections was granted and whereas since the office objections were nor removed by the clerk of the learned Advocate, therefore the said restoration application came to be dismissed for default.

4. There are certain other averments made in the application, and whereas since the same are not relevant, the same are not being recorded. It would appear in this regard that way the present application and the original petition had been proceeded reflects absolute negligence, apathy and lack of consideration to all the parties, more particularly to the Court. While a very bold statement has been made that order of this Court dated 30.01.2018 is not traceable, unfortunately, today, a copy of the said order is provided by learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya to this Court and whereas it would appear that the same is downloaded on 07.03.2025 from the website of this Court. Thus, it would appear that the affidavit has been filed by the deponent without verifying the record. It is also clear from a perusal of the papers of the main writ petition, which is annexed with this application that as such, the matter had been dismissed for non- prosecution on 01.12.2016, the same had been restored vide order dated 04.04.2017 by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, as Her Lordship then was) and whereas the said restoration had been made subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-. There is no reference to the said order in the affidavit referred to hereinabove, and whereas, it is upon non-compliance of the said order that the order which had been tendered across the bar by the learned Advocate dated 30.01.2018, was passed by this Court. It would also be relevant to state that while the learned Advocate is attempting to submit that he may have possibly paid the amount of Rs. 1000/- as costs, yet, the receipt of the same is not traceable in his office and upon inquiry with the High Court Advocates Library, the Library has informed that they do not have the receipt book for the period in which the fine was allegedly paid.

5. To this Court it would appear that the said submissions are also absolutely not tenable. The fact being that after 2018, again a restoration application was required to be filed, is reflective of the fact that the fine was not paid and the matter was dismissed for default again, and whereafter another restoration applica