1 S.B. Civil Restoration Application No.75/2008 in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 835/1996 Chogga Lal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 06.05.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF Mr. Deepak Goyal for the appellants-applicants. Mr. S.S.Hasan for the respondents. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.835/1996 was listed on 12.4.2006 and as none was present on behalf of the parties the same was dismissed in default in absence of counsel for the appellants. On 17.11.2006, the appellants filed this restoration application under Order 41 rule 19 C.P.C. together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is averred in para no.3 of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that when the appellant asked his counsel for the next date in the matter on 8.11.2006 then the counsel for the appellant enquired and came to know that the above case had been decided on 12.4.2006. He immediately applied for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 12.4.2006 and received the same on 14.11.2006 and then filed this restoration application. The restoration application appears to have been filed after a delay of 189 days. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. In para no.3 of the application filed under Section 2 5 of the Limitation Act it is averred that when the appellant asked his counsel about the next date in the matter then on enquiry the fact of dismissal of the appeal in default came to the notice of the counsel for the appellants. There are two appellants. From the averments made in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it is not clear as to which of the two appellants asked the counsel about the next date in the matter. Moreover, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not supported by affidavit of any of the two appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to condone the delay in filing the restoration application as the appellants applicants have failed to explain the delay in a satisfactory and convincing manner. In the result, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and consequently, the restoration application also stands dismissed. (G.S.SARRAF),J.