$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3497/2000 DEV VART ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ashutosh Jha, Adv. versus DVB ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 25.04.2017 CM 15467/2017(for condonation of 2422 days delay in filing the application for restoration) CM 15466/2017(for restoration) 1. An application bearing CM no.15467/2017 has been filed seeking condonation of 2422 days delay in filing CM 15466/2017 for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed in default on 24th July, 2009. The relevant averments made in the application are in para 7 onwards. 2. In para 8, the petitioner has stated that he has been regularly enquiring from his counsel regarding the status of the case. Counsel was assuring him that the matter has not come up for hearing and whenever the matter would come for hearing he would inform the petitioner. In paras 9 and 10, it is stated that he was regularly enquiring from his counsel regarding the status of the case. The counsel has informed him, that the matter has not come up for hearing and again assured him whenever the matter would come for hearing he would inform the petitioner. Petitioner did not hear from his counsel. That on 24th July, 2009, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner when this Court dismissed the petition in default and for non-prosecution. According to him, the order of dismissal of petition was never communicated to the petitioner by his counsel. In para 11, it is stated that the petitioner was facing financial constrain due to arbitrary order passed by the respondent as he was not getting any increment on his pension. He states that he had contacted his counsel in the month of March, 2013 when the counsel assured him that he would file an early hearing application in the matter. The averments made in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 would reveal that the petitioner has made efforts to ascertain the status of the case before 2009. But the same does not disclose what steps he has taken between 2009 till 2013 as averments in paras 12 and 13, reveal that the petitioner again contacted his counsel only in August, 2013 and enquired about the development in his case. He was informed that the matter has been dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2009. It is stated in Para 14, that he engaged a new counsel to move an appropriate application. 3. Suffice to state, no dates have been given, as to when he was told that the petition was dismissed and when did he engage a new counsel. He in Para 15 refers to the fact that the petitioner was bed-ridden for almost 18 months, which means till late 2015 or early 2016. The averments made in Paras 16 and 17, reveals he contacted the counsel for pursuing the matter but no date as to when he contacted has been mentioned. It is further stated that he further engaged a new counsel for filing the restoration application. It is stated, that the counsel filed restoration application but was lying in objection. The details regarding the application have also not been given. This application has been filed only on 11th April, 2017. 4. Suffice to state, the application for condonation of delay is vague and does not give material particulars and does not inspire confidence that the petitioner for justifiable reasons could not file the application. 5. I do not see any merit in the application seeking condonation of 2422 days delay in filing the application for restoration of the petititon. Application being CM no.15467/2017 seeking condonation of 2422 days delay is dismissed. Consequently, the application CM no.15466/2017 is also dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 25, 2017 RN