Condonation of delay refused where repeated listings and no timely inquiry defeated restoration of a writ petition.

Delay in seeking restoration of a writ petition was not condoned where the application was filed after a long lapse and the explanation that the matter was not noted on board by the attorney's clerk was rejected. The Court treated repeated prior listings and the petitioners' failure to make any timely inquiry after dismissal as fatal to the request for indulgence. It also held that litigants who engage experienced attorneys cannot seek restoration as a matter of course by attributing default to their representatives. The dismissal order therefore remained in force and the petition was not restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order should be condoned and the writ petition restored.

Analysis: The application was filed after a long delay. The explanation that the matter was not noted on board by the attorney's clerk was not accepted, particularly where the petition had been listed on several occasions and remained unattended. The Court also noted the absence of any timely inquiry after the dismissal and held that the petitioners, having engaged experienced attorneys, could not seek restoration as a matter of course on the basis of their representatives' default.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the dismissal order was not set aside.

---