IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2192 of 2009 RAM TANUK RAI & ORS . Versus SMT.SAROBAR DEVI & ORS . Ref: I.A. No.6784 of 2010 ----------- 05. 31.08.2010 I.A. No. 6784 of 2010 is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein prayer has been made for condoning the delay of four years and five months in filing of this restoration application under instant M.J.C. No. 2192 of 2009. The said restoration application No. 2192 of 2009 has been filed for restoration of F.A. No. 270 of 1973, which stood dismissed by this Court on 27.01.2005, as a result of having been found incompetent due to its’ dismissal against respondent Nos. 11(c ) and 11(a) on account of non-compliance of peremptory order No.106 therein. There has been a delay of four years and five months in the filing of this restoration application under M.J.C. No.2192 of 2009. For condoning the delay this I.A. No.6784 of 2010 has been filed. As to the grounds as set forth in this I.A. it is mentioned that the petitioner/appellant had no knowledge about the dismissal of the said F.A. No. 2 270 of 1973 and that after the disposal of the said F.A. when the respondent took copy of the order and started disposing of the property of their share, the petitioner/appellant came to know about the restoration application and thereafter he came to the Court, contacted his lawyer and after verifying the records learnt about the dismissal of the said F.A. No.270 of 1973 and that thereafter he file the restoration application. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the petitioner/appellant had no knowledge of the disposal of F.A. No.270 of 1973 and he could not file the restoration application within time. Thus, from the averment of the petitioner/appellant in the very I.A. itself, it appears that the petitioner being appellant in the said F.A. was quite negligent in prosecuting his appeal and that even the respondents were vigilant so that they obtained the copy of the dismissal order but the petitioner being the appellant did not take care of his 3 appeal. The appellant was also not fully vigilant in prosecuting his First Appeal, as a result of which it stood dismissed due to non-compliance of the peremptory order No.106 therein. It appears that petitioner was also negligent and there appears to be a grave laches on his part in filing this restoration application and the delay is not being reasonably explained. In the result, I do not find any reason to allow I.A. No.6784 of 2010; hence, the I.A. is dismissed. As a result of the dismissal of the I.A. the restoration application under M.J.C. No.2192 of 2009 also stands dismissed as time barred. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)