JUDGMENT

The petitioner defaulters approached the Tribunal through S.A.No.662/2011. Initially, on 7.2.2013, the Tribunal dismissed the S.A. for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.895/2013. Through order dated 2.5.2013, the Tribunal allowed the I.A and restored the S.A. to the file. Again on 9.7.2015, neither the petitioners nor their counsel was present before the Tribunal. So again the Tribunal was constrained to dismiss the S.A.

2. Once again the petitioners filed I.A.No.2054/2015, which the tribunal dismissed through Ext.P6.

3. The petitioners' counsel has persistently submitted that it is a fit case to be adjudicated on merit and any dismissal on technicalities will inflict substantial prejudice on the petitioner.

4. The respondents' counsel on the other hand O.P.(DRT)No.90/2018 2 submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately dragging the proceedings. According to her, this is the third writ petition before this Court. She has also submitted that on an earlier occasion the petitioners wanted the matter to refer to mediation, but did not appear before the mediation.

5. In reply, the petitioners' counsel submits that the earlier writ petitions are on diff