1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. RESTORATION APPL.NO.97/09. Ramesh Chand Sharma. VS. Municipal Board, Aklera. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. RESTORATION APPL.NO.97/09. IN S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.333/2001. Ramesh Chand Sharma. VERSUS Municipal Board, Aklera. 22.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya, for the petitioner. ***** While adjourning the case on 28.11.2007, at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the case was fixed for 03.12.2007. On 03.12.2007 the appeal was dismissed in default after non-appearance of the counsel for the appellant when the case was called in the first round so also in the second round. There is no material to show as to why the counsel did not appear on 03.12.2007, when the case was called and listed before this court. There is a delay of 422 days in filing this restoration application and all that has been stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that the counsel did not informed the appellant about the passing of the order dated 03.12.2007. In the application is has been stated that the appellant last contacted his counsel in the month of November, 2007 and thereafter he did not take any steps to contact his 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. RESTORATION APPL.NO.97/09. Ramesh Chand Sharma. VS. Municipal Board, Aklera. counsel till January, 2009. Even assuming that the counsel did not inform about the passing of the order dated 03.12.2007 does not understandable as to why the appellant has not contacted the counsel for a period more than a year and throughout the year 2008. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find that there was any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly dismissed. The restoration application is also dismissed as barred by limitation. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.