( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 130 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10347 OF 2007 Bhagwat s/o. Keshav Patil .. Appellant Versus Kulwantsingh Bhagatsingh Gujral and ors. .. Respondents Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 03.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant, Shri S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for respondent No.3. This is an appeal preferred against the order to refuse restoration of appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.86 of 2001, which came to be dismissed on 03.08.2002 by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Jalgaon. ( 2 ) 2. Some of the facts needs to be referred to know the history of the litigation, so that we may consider if the reason given is genuine and satisfactory. The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.235 of 1988 for recovery of an amount towards transaction in respect of a truck. Said suit was decreed partly on 27.07.1990. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the High Court bearing appeal No. 269 of 1990. Due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, said appeal came to be transfered to the District Court, Jalgaon and it was re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2001. The present appellant appeared on 30.10.2001 as per notice served by the District Court, Jalgaon. He made application for engaging an advocate, but did not engage advocate nor he attended the Court on any of the dates fixed thereafter in the appeal. For depositing paper book charges the date 23.11.2001 was fixed. It appears that the paper- book was prepared, but thereafter the matter came up for hearing on 03.08.2002. The appellant was absent therefore the appeal came to be dismissed. Thereafter, it is said that the appellant came to know of dismissal on 15.03.2004 and then he filed Misc. Application along with application for ( 3 ) condonation of delay of 331 days. The delay was condoned and then Misc. Civil Appeal No.1 of 2006 came up for hearing. Same came to be dismissed and as against same, this appeal from order is filed. 3. Perusal of order of the Adhoc District Court -2, Jalgaon shows that after notices were issued by the District Court, Jalgaon, on receipt of the appeal, the appellant did appear on 30.10.2001. The appellant filed application for time to file Vakalatnama. The respondents engaged their advocate. The appeal was posted for paper book charges on 23.11.2001 and then again on 02.01.2001, but no one was present and therefore the matter was adjourned to 15.02.2002 for payment of paper-book charges. Even then nobody was present for thee appellant. It is noticed that paper-book was already prepared. The matter was fixed for hearing on 05.03.2002. On that day the Presiding Officer was on leave but none for the parties was present. Therefore the matter was posted on 05.04.2002. On that day also none was present for the appellant, but the advocate for the respondents was present. The matter was posted on 26.06.2002. On that day also none was present for the appellant as well as ( 4 ) respondents, and the matter was posted on 03.08.2002. On that day the advocate for the respondent was present, but none was present for the appellant. Therefore, the matter was dismissed. 4. The history shows that from 1988 this litigation has been fought. The matter was pending in the District Court from 2001 onwards. In between 30.01.2001 when the the appellant appeared and till 03.08.2002 during the ten months, the appellant did not engage advocate, nor he appeared and prosecuted the appeal personally. 5. It is also clear that, earlier Special Darkhast No. 36 of 1990 was pending as can be seen from two receipts dated 04.05.1991 and 20.12.1990 produced with the appeal memo. These receipts show that the amount of Rs.43000/- was deposited in the said Special Darkhast. The original suit was for money and decree of Rs.43,000/- with interest was passed. Substantial amount was paid in 1990-1991. 6. We do not get any sufficient reason for not engaging advocate or not attending the appeal by the ( 5 ) appellant. It was stated in the application that the appellant did not receive any direction to pay paper book charges and then clerk told him that record of the appeal was not traceable. It is difficult to believe such version in absence of any corroboration. It is very easy to give such explanation which is not substantiated. 7. In my considered opinion, looking to the facts and circumstances it is not case to interfere in the discretion used. I may refer the cases cited by the advocate for the appellant. In State Bank of India V/s. Taril Appliances and Equipment Pvt. Ltd., and ors, AIR 2006 CALCUTTA 121, in para 12 of the said case it is stated that client should not suffer for negligence on the part of his advocate. But here the applicant has not engaged any advocate in the District Court in spite of notice sent to him and in spite of application submitted by him for time to engage advocate. Similarly, Zilla Panchayat, Bijnor V/s. VIIth Addl. Dist. Court, Bijnor and ors, AIR 1998 Allahabad 346 is also cited before me. The learned advocate referred to para 17. In the facts of the particular case, it was found sufficient reason ( 6 ) for delay. It is also true that generally Courts are liberal, but when there is no sufficient reason, application for restoration can not be allowed. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 8. In view of disposal of this Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 10347 of 2007 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/ao130.07