Judgment:
M.C.C.No.889/2009 (Firm Satish Chandra Devendra Kumar Jain and others versus Devi Singh and another) 18.03.2013 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the applicants.
Smt.
Sweta Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
This application has been filed for restoration of Second Appeal No.219/95 which stood dismissed on 16.07.2003.
Admittedly, the application filed by the applicants is barred by 2138 days along with an application for condonation of delay, I.A.No.7406/09.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that a peremptory order was passed by this court in the year 2003, not compliance of which led to automatic dismissal of the appeal.
It is submitted that thereafter the applicant engaged a new counsel who filed his Vakalatnama on 02.04.2009.
It is stated that subsequent thereto the counsel for the applicants came to knot that the appeal had already been dismissed and therefore, after three months of the filing of the Vakalatnama, an application for restoration was made.
It is submitted that in the circumstances, delay be condoned and the appeal be restored to its original number.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants it is observed that the applicant has not stated any reason acceptable or otherwise for condoning the delay not has he given any explanation as to what was he doing between 2003 to 2009 and as to why did he not verify the status of the appeal at the time of engaging a new counsel who filed his Vakalatnama without even verifying the fact regarding pendency of the appeal, moreso, the appeal was admittedly not pending before this court on 02.04.2009 when the Vakalatnama of the newly engaged counsel was filed.
In the circumstances, in the total absence of any reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay of six yeaRs.I.A.No.7406/09 stands dismissed.
Consequently, MCC for restoration is also dismissed.
(R.S.Jha) Judge msp