ROOP NARAIN SHARMA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are regular second appeals which were filed way back on 19.3.2007. Although application for restoration is listed today along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application but till date no substantial question of law has been framed despite sufficient number of opportunities having been given to the appellant in this regard.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the facts of R.S.A. No.85/2007 are being referred to as both the appeals are filed against the same impugned order. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 24.1.2011, the court had renotified the matter for formulation of substantial question of law, if any and adjourned it to 18.4.2011 as by that time more than four years had elapsed from the date of filing. On the next date, i.e., on 18.4.2011, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and the matter was again renotified for 20.7.2011 on which date as well, since there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant, the appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution. It gives an impression that the appellant wanted to keep the appeals pending without formulation of any substantial question of law.

(3.) On 8.8.2011, an application being C.M. No.14723/2011 was filed seeking restoration of the matter. On the next date, that is, on 29.11.2011, the respondent had drawn the attention of the court to an earlier order dated 19.8.2009 whereby the appellant had been visited with a cost of Rs.20,000/- which was also not paid and, therefore, the application for restoration was opposed as it was pointed out to the court that Section 35-A CPC mandates that the case should not proceed unless and until the cost is paid. The court was pleased to pass a peremptory order directing that cost of Rs.20,000/- be paid within a week failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.