IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 247 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.5.2008 Gian Singh and others Petitioners. Versus Kartar Chand and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Inderjeet Narwal Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.4. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, dated 3.7.2007, whereby he has rejected the application for restoration filed by the petitioners as totally misconceived. The brief facts of the case are that Revision Petition No. 83 of 2004 was filed in the Court of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla, by Shri Munshi Ram, predecessor in interest of the present petitioners. Shri Munshi Ram expired on 21st December, 2004 and thereafter the present petitioners filed an application under Order 22, Rules, 4, 5 and 9 and under Order 1 Rule 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 10 CPC for bringing them on record as legal representatives of deceased Munshi Ram. Reply to this application was filed and same was then contested. The record shows that the Civil Revision was dismissed in default on 3rd June, 2005. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed and the revision petition was restored on 9th August, 2005. The matter was then listed on 18th November, 2005 for hearing, on which date, time was sought on behalf of the petitioners and the matter was then listed on 2nd December, 2005. Again counsel for the petitioners did not appear and sought more time. This was not allowed and the petition was dismissed as having abated. This petition was not dismissed in default but as having abated. Thereafter, an application was filed for restoration of the case. This application was filed on 11th January, 2007 more than one year after the revision petition had been dismissed. The explanation given in the application for not filing the same earlier, reads as follows:- “That as the petitioner had died, his sons were not aware that the matter had to be prosecuted before the learned Financial Commissioner, as such, they could not be present on the date of hearing when the matter was listed before the Hon’ble Court. That the legal representatives of the deceased Munshi Ram were not aware that they had to prosecute the matter before the learned Financial Commissioner and as such, they could not appear on the dates as has been mentioned in the order sheet.” The learned Financial Commissioner rejected the application only on the ground that this application was not maintainable as the petition has been dismissed as abated and had not been dismissed for non prosecution or for default. Assuming that the application was maintainable and without taking a technical view of the matter, I have gone into the facts of the case. It is apparent that the petitioners have not been diligent in pursuing the case. They had also filed a false affidavit before the Financial Commissioner. In para 5 and 6 they had stated that they were not aware that they had to prosecute the matter before the learned Financial Commissioner. This is apparently a false plea since the petitioners through Shri Baryam Singh, petitioner No.2, has filed an application for bringing on record the legal representatives. No indulgence can be shown to the petitioners who have not only shown lack of diligence in pursuing the matter but have now come up with a false explanation. The order of the learned Financial Commissioner calls for no interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 28th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™