IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2992 of 2010 JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 5 10-05-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the explanation for inordinate delay of 624 days in preferring this restoration application. In paragraph 5 of the limitation application, there is a statement that delay has been explained in paragraph 7 and some other paragraphs of the restoration application. Paragraph 7 of the restoration application reveals that the petitioner/appellant had taken away the file from the advocate on record and lastly handed over the same to his counsel on 19-7-2010 with an instruction to file restoration application whereas the limitation has expired on 6-11-2008. From the submissions noticed above, the fault and laches are squarely on the part of petitioner. We find no good reason to condone the delay of 624 days. The limitation petition is, therefore, rejected. As 2 a consequence, the restoration application shall stand dismissed on account of limitation. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)