1 MCC No.220/2011 13.12.2011 Shri Harish Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. None for the non-applicants. Heard. This Court on 16.5.2011 issued notices on the application for restoration of M.A. No.1636/04 and I.A. No.2719/11, an application for condonation of delay. In spite of notice no one is appearing on behalf of the respondents. This application for restoration has been filed for restoration of M.A. No.1636/04, which has been dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 27.6.2008. On 27.6.2008 when this matter was listed for hearing this Court on going through the record of the case found that no PF was paid by the applicant in compliance to order dated 20th July, 2005, in spite of time granted on 17.2.2005 & 1.7.2005. Due to noncompliance on 20.7.2005 the appeal was dismissed for want or prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.6.2008 no one gave appearance on behalf of the applicant nor any intimation was given to the applicant regarding noncompliance of order dated 20.7.2005 and, therefore, he could not know about the proceedings of the Court nor he came to know about dismissal order dated 27.6.2008. For the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.2719/11), which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant the cause shown by the applicant is sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Consequently, the delay in filing application for restoration is allowed. As per averments made in the application for restoration learned counsel appearing earlier could not remove the defect pointed out by the Registry in spite of number of opportunities granted by the Court the appeal was dismissed in default. For the reasons assigned by the applicant the cause is genuine. The applicant was under a bona fide impression that the said lawyer is prosecuting his appeal, but he never informed the applicant. Since no 2 information was given to the applicant about removal of the default and, therefore, the applicant could not be suffered due to noncompliance on the part of his lawyer. On due consideration the application for restoration is allowed. M.A. No.1636/2004 is restored to its original number. The applicant is granted further two weeks' time to remove the default and do the needful in the matter, failing which this order shall automatically come to an end. Certified copy as per rules. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*