A perusal of the order sheet annexed as Annexure-(4) to the petition indicates that on numerous dates, petitioner who is the plaintiff in the case was not present in the Court either because of the strike by the Bar or for other reasons. The order sheet further indicates that the case was dismissed in default because of the absence of the plaintiff on 23.3.2013 and the same was restored on 17.9.2019 i.e., almost six and half years after the case was dismissed in default. There is no averment in the petition that the plaintiff/petitioner made any attempt for early disposal of the restoration application filed by him. The case stood dismissed in default for six and half years i.e., from 23.3.2013 to 17.9.2019 . The suit was instituted in 2011. For certain period, the Courts in order to follow the protocol of Covid-19 did not function with their full capacity. The order sheet also indicates that the plaintiff/petitioner did not take steps on time in accordance with the direction of the Court and therefore, frequently further time was granted to the plaintiff to take steps. The said fact would be evident from the order sheet dated 7.9.2012, 16.10.2012, 28.11.2019, 12.1.2021 and 18.1.2021. The aforesaid shows that the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay, if any, in the trial of the case.
