MCC No. 676 of 2010
1. This is restoration application No. 676 of 2010 for restoration of First Appeal No. 2 of 2006 which was dismissed in default on 30.07.2010.
2. Heard.
3. Perusal of the affidavit on record shows that the appeal was filed on 17.01.2006 and admitted on 18.01.2006. Thereafter learned Counsel for the appellant sought adjournments and did not take steps for service on the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.04.2007.
4. The restoration application No. 1447 of 2007 was moved alongwith delay condonation application No. 3204 of 2007. Both the applications were dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2007 for non-prosecution.
5. Thereafter, Restoration application MCC No. 91 of 2008 was moved for restoration of restoration of the aforesaid two applications which was allowed by this Court by its order dated 13.02.2008. Again no one turned up on behalf of the appellant to press the restoration application No. 1447 of 2007 and vide order dated 29.04.2008, the restoration application No. 1447 of 2007 was dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. Once again restoration application No. 666 of 2008 alongwith delay condonation application No. 3534 of 2008 was moved on behalf of appellant for restoration of the restoration application. This Court, vide its order dated 25.06.2008 allowed the delay condonation application No. 3534 of 2008, restoration application No. 666/08 as well as restoration application No. 1447 of 2007 restored as First Appeal No. 2 of 2006. However, it appears that the appellant and his counsel once again remained slept on the date (02.09.2009), the case was listed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.09.2009.
7. This time, the restoration application No. 663 of 2009 was moved once again to restore the appeal.
8. Court considered the prayer of the appellant leniently and in the interest of justice, the restoration application No. 663 of 2009 was allowed, and appeal was restored once again in its original number.
9. But again on 19.04.2010 no one turned up on behalf of the appellant, and this Court had no other option to dismiss the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
10. Appellant took advantage of leniency shown by this Court moved MCC Restoration Application No. 346 of 2010 which was allowed by this Court on 17.05.2010 and appeal was ordered to be restored in its original number. Finally vide order dated 30.07.2010, the appeal was dismissed in default of the appellant and no one turned up on behalf of the appellant. Hence, this restoration application.
11. Having mentioned above history of the appellant''s conduct in prosecuting the appeal, now this Court does not find any substance in the ground mentioned in the affidavit filed with MCC Restoration application No. 676 of 2010, and the same is hereby dismissed.
