( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5770 OF 2010 Bhartibai w/o Kisanrao Pawar & another PETITIONERS VERSUS Ramprasad s/o Gopikisan Tonshniwal & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.B. Dhage, advocate for the petitioners. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, at Nanded. The petition was dismissed in default. The petitioners did not apply for restoration of the petition well within time. After a considerable period of about three (3) years, they filed application for restoration of the claim petition (M.A.C. Petition No. 159/1998). They alleged that due to old age and medical problems, they could not attend the Court. The petition was restored by allowing the application on 23rd ( 2 ) September, 2008. The learned Member of the M.A.C. Tribunal, however, lateron set aside the order of restoration for the reason that the petitioners misrepresented that it was the dismissal order passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal at Kandhar though it was the order passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal at Nanded. It appears that the restoration application was not submitted before the proper Court i.e. M.A.C. Tribunal at Nanded within the reasonable period and there was no sufficient cause shown for the purpose of condonation of delay before the M.A.C. Tribunal at Nanded. The misrepresentation made by the petitioners was itself sufficient to recall the order. A litigant who has suppressed material facts, is not entitled to seek relief and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. Petition dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5770-10