counsel, the same should have been done on time, knowing that there was no appearance on four dates before the learned Joint Registrar and the matter was placed before Court on 07.03.2025 for further directions on account of non-appearance of the Plaintiff. There is also no explanation in the application as to whether counsel for the Plaintiff informed the Plaintiff of the Court Notice served on the counsel and if so, the steps taken by the Plaintiff to ensure that he was represented on the returnable date. Clearly, the averments in the application do not make out sufficient cause for recall of order dated 07.03.2025 and restoration of the suit. Law cannot help those who are not vigilant and diligent in prosecuting their cases and treat orders of the Court in a casual manner. This is besides the fact that the affidavit supporting the application is verified and attested on dated 09.04.2025, while the application is drafted and signed on 14.04.2025. No explanation is forthcoming to explain this position, which, as rightly pointed out by counsel for the Defendant, is indeed a serious matter. 13. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for restoration of the suit and the application is accordingly dismissed.
