IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1064 of 2008 MAHABIR SAH Versus BIBI JUBEDA KHATOON & ORS ----------- 12 22.09.2010 This application was filed on 29th April 2008 and the petitioner has prayed for restoration of S.A No. 332 of 1992. Heard. This is relevant to mention here that S.A.No. 332 of 1992 stood dismissed against Respondent no.7 vide order dated 7th April 1998 due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 10th February 1998, as passed therein. Subsequently, on 11th May 1998 the whole appeal was held to be incompetent. Thereafter the petitioner had filed M.J.C.No. 2567 of 2000 on 10th August 2000 i.e. after a period exceeding 2 years praying for restoration of said S.A.No. 332 of 1992. But that restoration application (MJC No. 2567 of 2000) stood dismissed vide this Court’s order dated 17th October 2000. It was mentioned in that order that the 2nd appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 10th February 1998 and thereafter observation had been made that the appellant may file restoration petition within 2 weeks but that, too, was not complied by the petitioner-appellant. hence, vide order dated 11th May 1998, the entire appeal was held to have abated and was dismissed as such. On these grounds, M.J.C. No. 2567 of 2000 was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed 2nd restoration application on 29th July 2004 i.e. after 3 years and 9 months of the 2 disposal of 1st restoration application (MJC No. 2567 of 2000) praying therein again for restoration of the said S.A.No. 332 of 1992. But that 2nd restoration application (MJC No.1527 of 2004) was also dismissed vide this Court’s order as passed on 21st April 2005 mainly on the ground of abnormal delay and there being no reasonable explanation for the delay. Thereafter as 3red attempt, the petitioner again filed MJC No. 3266 of 2005 on 8th December 2005 making the same prayer i.e. after 1 year and 7 on the of the dismissal of the 2nd restoration application. That 3rd restoration application as made under MJC No. 3266 of 2005 was dismissed vide this Court’s order dated 18th January 2006 on the grounds as mentioned in the order. Now as the 4th attempt, the petitioner has filed the instant MJC No. 1064 of 2008 and this application has also been filed with a delay of more than 2 years after the 3rd restoration application was dismissed by this Court. Firstly, I find that there is a delay of a period exceeding 2 years from the date when the 3rd restoration application was dismissed and no reasonable explanation is being given for this delay. On perusal of the record it appears that from the date of 1st dismissal order as passed in the 2nd appeal which was passed in the year 1998, the petitioner has filed four restoration applications within a span of 10 years and every restoration application was filed with a delay of years together. The petitioner does not appear to have been vigilant and 3 he appears to have adopted the means in fancy in filing the restoration application after years when he wished. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in the past in filing of the restoration application had occurred due to laches of the learned counsel who were engaged in the past. But this is not a question of solitary delay. There has been abnormal delay with reference of several instances. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh reported in 2000(3) PLJR SC 81 wherein a delay of 675 days was condoned when question of limitation arose. Be that as it may the delay as condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was a one-time delay and that, too, was condoned in particular facts of the case. In the instant case, there are several delays of such nature and there is no reasonable explanation for it. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case for restoring the appeal by condoning the abnormal delay. In the acts and circumstances, as above, this M.J.C. is dismissed. Jay/ (C. M . Prasad, J.)