HOTEL RAM RESIDENCY vs BANK OF BARODA on 26 July 2023

DATE MA 36/23 26t07t23 CONTD. ORDER-SHEET PAGE No CASE No Shri Atul Choudhaly', Adv lur the Applicant with Applicant no.2 Shri Rahul Ganeshe, Adv lor thc Non Applicant Ilank

l. Matter is taken up fbl hearing on tht application lbr rcstoratton.

2. Both the cor.tnscls at'e agrcc to atgtte th matter finally.

3. Matter is takcn up for final hearing.

4. On matter being takcn Applrcaut Cloutlsc by inviting attention on order daLed 2010712 submits that on non-appearance lbr first rottn tlris nrattcr has bccn disrrisseci lbr rvant o trrrosecution horrcr''cr alicr sttrtte tinle ('or.rnse had appeared and prays lirr restoling th matter on the same day but prayer to restoration had bccn dcclincd then only thi application Ibr t'cstot'ation has bccrt Illctl.

5. Applicant Counsel turthcr apprised tha Applicant and Counsel tbr the Applicants bot were intendccl to attend thc lnattcr runfbrtunatcly' thcy lound ol call. coulcl not lclchcd on llrs

6. On being askcd Responclcnt Counsc submits that lookins to lirct rncntioncd unrlcr the ordcr shccI and plcading rrlso hc ob.jcctin the prayer lbrrnally. REiiARK

7. Though SA No.753/22 pcrusal hol'cr cl Iooking is not called lir to corrtcntions o

CONTD. ORDER.SHEET PAGE No CASE No DATE REMARK

both the side no need to peruse the original record since all thc facts have already been mentioned in the order sltcet drarvn and certified copy has already been tagged ivith this MA.

8. On perusal ol' ordcr clatcd 20i07i23 it reveals that ulrcn lxattcr uas callcd no onc had appearcd on behalf of thc Applicants therefbre SA No.753l22 had been dismissed fbr want of prosecution, looking ttl past conduct of Applicants. Houevct on tlte sartte day Applicant Counscl Shri Atul Choudhary, had appeared and prays for taking this matter but the Bench has declined to take tlre matter since order has alrcady been dictatcd. It also reveals that thercalier an application lirr taking this matter has also becn filed on thc same dal' but due to norr-availability ol' Respondent Counsel application could not lre trken lilr consideration.

9. Looking to thc fact that on the same day Applicant and his advocate had appeared belore the l'ribunal and pral s lirr taking this matter, on this circuustanccs Applicants are entitled to hear in this matter on merit and SA No.753122 deserved to be restored.

10. -thereforc pravcr lirr restoration is allotlccl. SA No.753/22 is hereby stand restored lbr hearing on merit. I l. Registry is dilcctcd to rcstorc thc SA No.753122 in original nttmber'

CONTD. ORDER.SHEET PAGE No CASE No DATE REMARK

12. Registry is furlher directed to list main SA No.753122 on 17108123 fbr final hearing at 2:30 PM.

13. It is also made clear that if interim rclief had already bccn granted in the main SA then interim relicf shall also bc restorcd and be continued till next date of hearing.

14. MA stand disposed of finally'

15. Record be consigned to the rccord room. slD .**-*' (Rari-Niwas I'}atcl) Prcsidin Ollicer D.lL.T,.labalpur (M.P & C.G)