HIGH COURT OF CHHATTHSGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon’hie Shri Dhirendra Mishra,’& Hon’bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ £ Writ Appeal No. 640 of 2010 Appeliant Indrajeet Singh Bedi. Sic Shri Jyoti Petitioner Singh Bedi, aged about 58 years, R/o Village and Tahsii Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) .Versus- Respondents 1. Nagman 8/0 Hunda Kanwar, Rlo Village Aamatoli, Tahsii Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 2. Bhoomi Vikash Bank, Through: Manager, Bhoomi Vikash Ban, Ambikapur. Distt. Surguja (CG) Collector, District Surguja (CG) Board of Revenue, Through Presiding Officer, CG Board of Revenue, Biiaspur (CG) Present: Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for the appellant/petitioner. ORAL JUDGMENT (1 0‘“ March, 2m 1) Per Dhirendra Mishra‘ J The petitioner‘s writ petition against the order of- the Board of Revenue was dismissed by the learned Single Judge for want of prosecution on 9‘“ July, 2009. The petitioner's application (MCC No.82/201 O) for restoration of W.P.(c) No.2773/2007. along with an appiication for condonation of delay of 191 days, has been again dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause for filing restoration application with a delay of 191 days, vide impugned order dated 23rd July, 2010. 2. The instant writ appeal is directed against the above order and the same has been'preferred along with an application for condonation of delay as there is a delay of 92 days in filing this appeal. 3. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution and the application for restoration of writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the same has been preferred with a delay of 191 days and the applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Delay of 92 I @ days in filing this appeai has occurred as due to wrong advice, the appeiiant could not file this appeal within the limitation prescribed. The appellant’s writ petition has not been decided on merits and the same has been dismissed fer want of prosecution. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have candoned the delay and restore the writ petition and decided the same on merits. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned Singie Judge, after considering the reasons assigned by the applicant for delay in filing restoration application. has dismissed the same with an observation that the applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 191 days. The finding is based on the material placed before the learned Single Judge. The appellant has been negligent throughout as the instant appeal has also been preferred with a delay of 92 days without any sufficient valid reason. For the aforesaid reasons. we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not Suffer from any illegality or intirmity warranting any interference in writ appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and consequently, the application (iA No.01) for condonation of delay, is also dismissed. 6. Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra Judge la