“ 3. That, before giving parawise reply to the averments made in various paragraphs of the application for condonation of delay, at the outset the Deponent begs to submit that the alleged incident for filing of the writ petition, as described in this application, took place on 10.08.2000 and the writ was filed on 29.03.2004, vide W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2004 and the same was listed on 15.07.2014 for fresh admission, when notice was issued against the Opp. Party. In response to the notice, the Opp. Party appeared through their Advocate. Thereafter, the case was listed for twice, but the Petitioner was found to be absent on both occasion. Finally, the writ petition was listed on 10.09.2014 and as the Petitioner was found to be absent for three consecutive dates, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the case for non-prosecution. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 10.09.2014 and needs no interference of this Hon’ble Court. From the approach of the Petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition and his seriousness towards his so called plight can be well judged. The above conduct of the Petitioner has an important bearing with merits of the case and fair disposal of the present CMAPL, which has been filed more than nine
