D/L54 17.09.2026 Bpg. WPA No.24237 of 2013 With CAN 8 of 2025 With CAN 9 of 2025 Chintamani Paul Versus Allahabad Bank & Ors. Mr. Avirup Mondal Ms. Ahana Ghosh Mondal. …for the petitioner. Mr. Pralay Kar Ms. Debasree Dhamali Ms. Riya Ghosh Ms. Debolina Ghosh. …for the Bank. 1. This writ petition was filed some time in 2013 and as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner has been dismissed on 10th June, 2016. Strangely, this order of 10th June, 2016 has never been recalled and the writ petition has never been restored. 2. CAN 2 of 2018 and CAN 3 of 2018 are the restoration applications and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay filed on 10th May, 2018. This delay of 669 days has never been condoned and the application was never heard. 2 3. Even while the writ petition remain dismissed by virtue of the order dated 10th June, 2016, an application for substitution of the original petitioner who expired on 17th February, 2017 was filed on 19th July, 2018 with an application for condonation of delay of 335 days. This is CAN 4 and CAN 5 of 2018. 4. The writ petition had not been restored and magically appeared in the list, when on September 9, 2022 it was dismissed once again with all connected applications that is, CAN 2 of 2018, CAN 3 of 2018, CAN 4 of 2018 and CAN 5 of 2018. These applications had already been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. 5. The applicants thereafter filed another restoration application on 29th August, 2023 along with an application under Section 5 being CAN 6 of 2023 and CAN 7 of 2023 respectively. The delay was of 325 days. 6. The aforestated applications were also dismissed for default, on account whereof on May 14, 2025, there was no application for restoration of CAN 2 of 2018, CAN 3 of 2018, CAN 4 of 2018, CAN 5 of 2018, CAN 6 of 2023, and CAN 7 of 2023. Hence, on May 14, 2025, the writ petition was dismissed afresh along with the applications being CAN 2 of 3 2018, CAN 3 of 2018, CAN 4 of 2018, CAN 5 of 2018, CAN 6 of 2023, and CAN 7 of 2023. 7. CAN 8 of 2025 is the application seeking the recalling of the order of May 14, 2025, and restoration of the writ petition. 8. CAN 9 of 2025 is an application seeking to substitute the application in place instead of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in view of the merger of the Allahabad Bank with the Indian Bank. 9. There is no application presently seeking substitution of the applicant herein as the legal heir and representative of the original writ petitioner, who expired on February 17, 2017. The application for substitution of the applicant, being CAN 4 of 2018, was dismissed on September 9, 2022, and has not been restored. 10. There is no explanation in CAN 9 of 2025 as to why the petitioner was not represented on the day when the writ petition was dismissed for default. 11. As to when the writ petition was dismissed for default, there is no doubt. This date was on June 10, 2016. There is not a word on why the petitioners were unrepresented on June 10, 2016. This application proceeded on the basis that the order of dismissal of the writ petition was on May 14, 2025. The original order of dismissal on June 4 10, 2016, has not been challenged, on account whereof this application has to fail. The application for restoration cannot be allowed when the writ petition continues to be dismissed by virtue of the order dated June 10, 2016. 12. There is presently no application seeking to recall the order of June 10, 2016, which is the original order dismissing the writ petition. 13. The applicants have not acted diligently in pursuing their remedies as the writ petition has been dismissed on three occasions. In fact, the restoration applications also have been dismissed on earlier occasions. The applicants as of today, do not have any right to file an application for restoration of the writ petition since they were never substituted, since 2017. In fact, the application for substitution made by the applicants is also grossly delayed, which had been dismissed for default. There is no application on record seeking to restore such petition for substitution which was dismissed in 2022. 14. The petitioners cannot be permitted to abuse the process of court by filing repeated applications for restoration, with an application for condonation of delay. 5 15. In view of the above, CAN 8 of 2025 fails and is accordingly dismissed. 16. Consequently, CAN 9 of 2025 cannot be entertained and is dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)