IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 20.4.2009. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPERAL NO.2308/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri K.N. Sharma,for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This appeal has been filed after a delay 163 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed in which the ground taken is that the counsel for te appellant who had filed the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the main petition filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act which had been dismissed on 5.9.2002 had not informed the appellant about passing of the impugned order on 13.5.2008 dismissing the said application. It appears that the appellant is habitual of not taking interest in his case. The petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 5.9.2002 for non prosecution and an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC came to be filed on 6.01.2003 after nearly 4 months of the passing of the said order. Thereafter this application came to be decided on 13.5.2008 and the same was dismissed and this appeal has been filed after a delay of 126 days. The submission is that the appellant was no informed by the counsel about the passing of the order dated 13.5.2008. I am of the view that it was also the duty of the appellant to have contacted his counsel after the date fixed for hearing i.e. 13.5.2008 if he was unable to attend the hearing on 13.5.2008. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances appears to have been negligent in pursuing his case and himself made no attempt to find out as to what transpired in the court proceedings on 13.5.2008. On the facts which have come on record it is apparent that the appellant has been negligent in pursuing the matter and in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said that there was sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within time. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS