MAYANK LAL GOSWAMI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised. No one has appeared for the contesting Respondents.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(3.) DELAY in filing restoration application was about two and half months. The only reason given by the Lower Appellate Court is that it appears that Appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter. It has also been noted in the impugned order that earlier also several times orders were passed, directing the Appellant to take steps but steps were not taken. The Appellate Court was required to consider the absence on the crucial date i.e. 30.03.2001 and not earlier lapses. Appellate Court also did not say as to why delay could not be condoned.