IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1101 of 2008 (M/S) Deepak Sharma …… Petitioner Versus Mahesh Chand and others …… Respondents …….. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Bist, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the trial Court restoring the suit as well as the order passed by the revisional Court dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition, I do feel that even though respondent no. 1- plaintiff, was negligent in prosecuting the matter properly, no fault can be found with the order restoring the suit to its original position as well as the order passed by the learned revisional Court dismissing the revision petition. Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner’s application was time-barred. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff, in the application for restoration, had pleaded about the knowledge of the dismissal of the suit within the limitation period. Under Article 122 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963, the relevant date is the “date of dismissal” and not the “date of knowledge”. However, after such a long time, relegating the plaintiff to a fresh spate of restoration process would not be in the interest of justice or in the interest of parties. The restoration, therefore, now, by this Court is made subject to respondent no. 1-plaintiff paying Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to be deposited in the High Court Legal Aid Fund within four weeks from today. The petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid direction regarding the deposit of costs. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 07.07.2008 A 2