Restoration of a case dismissed in default may be denied if the applicant demonstrates a lack of diligence, habitually changes counsel, and intentionally conceals material facts from the court.

By Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

MA No.3349/2025 in OA No.1118/2020

The Original Application (O.A.) No.1118/2020 was filed by the applicant, Shri Jagbir Singh, for adjudication. The said O.A. was dismissed in default (DID) by this Tribunal on 24.03.2025 due to non-appearance of both the applicant as well as his counsel. On earlier dates also i.e 13.12.2024 and 28.01.2025, neither the applicant nor his advocates appeared. The absence was not due to lack of interest but was caused by the serious medical condition of the applicant, who is a heart patient. It is also pertinent to mention that on the date of hearing, i.e., 24.03.2025, the counsel, Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen, Advocate, could not appear due to unavoidable reasons.

2. The applicant filed O.A. No. 1118/2020 before this Tribunal on 18.08.2020. The matter was last listed on 24.08.2020 during the initial stage and thereafter proceeded on various dates.

3. On 24.03.2025, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. in default. The applicant and his counsel failed to appear on 13.12.2024, 28.01.2025 & 24.03.2025. The reasons for absence stated below.

4. The applicant suffered from severe heart-related ailments and was under treatment at Fortis Hospital from 28.05.2022 to 20.01.2025. He continued follow-up treatment thereafter and was advised complete bed rest until 22.04.2024. Due to this prolonged medical condition, he could not attend court. After regaining partial recovery, he visited the office of the undersigned counsel at Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, and signed the vakalatnama. Hence, the delay of 40 days is sought to be condoned.

5. The applicant, being bedridden, was under the bona fide belief that his earlier counsel, Shri Krishan Kant Sharma of Patiala House Courts, was diligently handling O.A. No. 1118/2020. He was repeatedly assured that everything was in order and that he need not attend the Tribunal, and should instead focus on recovery. Due to this assurance, the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal.

6. The applicant was not informed by his earlier counsel or his associates that they had not been appearing before the Tribunal. They continued to tell him that the matter was being properly handled. Only when the Speed Post communication from the Tribunal was received, did the applicant learn that the O.A. had been dismissed in default on 24.03.2025. Hence this application no.3349/2025 has been filed for condonation of delay.

7. This MA No.3349/2025 was listed before the Court on 16.09.2025 and following order has been passed :-

“The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking restoration of the Original Application. It is stated that the earlier counsel had neglected the matter after filing the same, which resulted in its dismissal. The applicant has now engaged a new counsel.

2. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the earlier counsel for the applicant shall file, within one week, a specific application explaining the reasons for his/her non-appearance when the matter was listed.

3. List on 02.12.2025 for further proceedings.”

7. We have considered the submissions of the counsel and also perused the record. From the record, it appears that the applicant has a habitual tendency to change his counsel. The file reflects that Advocate Mr. M.S. Reen first appeared and even issued an NOC for the engagement of another counsel. Thereafter, Advocates Mr. Sumeet Singh Shokeen, Mr. Sunny and Mr. Deepanshu filed their vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant on 20.05.2024. However, neither the applicant nor any of the counsels appeared subsequently, which resulte