18.09.2025 Item No.26 Ct. No. 446 PG CRR 2362 of 2015 With I.A. No. CRAN 2 of 2025 With I.A. No. CRAN 3 of 2025 Ashim Das & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Suman Sehanabis (Mondal) Ms. Atulya Verma Mr. Swaraj Naskar ……For the petitioners Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu…………For the State In Re : I.A. No. CRAN 2 of 2025 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. There is delay of 132 days in filing the restoration application by recalling the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants/petitioners that they came to know about the dismissal of the matter from the learned trial Court, where after dismissing the revisional application, the copy of the order was forwarded thereby delay has occurred and there is no fault of on the part of the applicants/petitioners. 3. Learned advocate representing the State raises objection. Heard the submission and perused the record. It is clear that because of gross negligence on the part of the applicants/petitioners, nobody appeared before the Court when the matter was called and subsequently dismissed. 4. Be that as it may, since the applicants/petitioners has come before this Court and explanation, as furnished before this Court primarily appears to be satisfactory enough, this Court is of the view that such delay be condoned. Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. CRAN 3 of 2025) is restored to its original file and number. 2 5. In view of the above, I.A. No. CRAN 2 of 2025 stands allowed. In Re : I.A. No. CRAN 3 of 2025 6. This application is taken up for hearing. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants/petitioners that this matter was initially heard long back and being an old matter, this was running in the list and somehow the learned advocate on record of the applicants/petitioners missed the warning list and on 18.03.2025, when none appeared, the matter was dismissed for default, which fact also they were not aware. Only they came to learn about the same from the learned trial Court and in view of the same, learned advocate for the applicants/petitioners prays for restoring the matter. 7. Learned advocate representing the opposite party/State raises objection. Heard the submission and perused the record. The matter was running in the warning list since long, as mentioned in the order dated 18.03.2025 and fact remains after a gap of 10 years, the matter appeared in the list. 8. Considering this fact, the Court is of the view that a further opportunity should be given to the petitioners to place their case. Accordingly, this restoration application stands allowed. The revisional application is restored to its original file and number subject to the conditions that the petitioners will pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee before the ensuing Puja Vacation and to submit the receipt thereof before this Court on the next date of hearing. 9. Let the matter be listed on 29th October, 2025 under the caption ‘Old Hearing Matter’. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.) 3