2024 (12) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant, seeking restoration of RA 200/2023 has been dismissed. The Applicant/Appellant filed I.A. 1724 of 2021 against the Order by which her claim was rejected by the RP. The Appellant is a homebuyer. The said application remained on board for about two years and ultimately dismissed on 6th October, 2023 for non-prosecution. On 6th October, 2023, the following Order was passed:- "IA - 1724/ 2021 None appears despite repeated calls. IA dismissed for non-prosecution." 2. The Appellant then filed an application bearing No. RA - 200/2023. According to the Appellant, the said application was shown in the list of ordinary cases and not in the supplementary cases, therefore, it escaped her notice and the said app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for US without informing the Appellant. Otherwise, Appellant would have engaged another Counsel to pursue the said application. As soon as the Appellant came to know on the website of the Tribunal on 15th November, 2023 that the application has been dismissed for non-prosecution, on 6th October, 2023, the Appellant filed the Restoration Application bearing R.A. No.200 of 2023 which was though listed by the Tribunal in the cause list but in the ordinary cases though it is generally listed in the supplementary list as a result of which it did not come to the notice of the Appellant and, therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant on 14th December, 2023. The said application was also rejected for non-prosecution. The App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fault of his advocate. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Advocate appearing for the Respondent has submitted that the non-appearance on 14th December, 2023 is on the part of the Appellant because the case was shown in the cause list, may be in the list of ordinary cases. She has further submitted that at the time of passing of the impugned Order on 11th January, 2024, the Tribunal has observed that it has heard the Counsel, perused the application and recorded that it has not found any reason to allow the application, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Counsel for the Appellant that her case has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. 8. Heard both the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only....