IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.750 of 2008 BAIJNATH PRASAD & ORS Versus AYODHYA PRASAD & ORS ----------- 3. 03.12.2008 This MJC application has been filed on 18.3.2008 with a prayer for restoration of S.A. No. 298 of 2004 which was dismissed as a result of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 22.2.2006 which directed for filing of the substantial question of law involved in the appeal within two weeks with a rider that if it was not complied, the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. Since the appellant/petitioner did not comply the peremptory order within time and the appeal stood dismissed. It is evidence that restoration application under instant MJC case has been filed after a lapse of period exceeding two years. Thus, there is exorbitant delay in the filing of this case. As also averred in the restoration application, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the appellant had entrusted the lawyer to look after the case but he did not do so and did not care for compliance of the peremptory order, hence, the S.A. No. 298 of 2004 was dismissed. Further submission is that the appellant subsequently came to know about dismissal of the second appeal then he engaged a lawyer and filed this restoration. Be that as it may, but there has been abnormal delay in the filing of this application and the reasons as explained for the delay is not convincing. I am not satisfied with the grounds taken by the petitioner/appellant for restoration of the second appeal. Accordingly, this restoration application is dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-