MAHENDRA RAM AND OTHERS Vs. CMD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. No one turned up on behalf of opposite parties inspite of repeated calls.

(2.) Perusal of the record reveals that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 1442 days in filing civil miscellaneous petition No. 472 of 2017, which has been filed with a prayer to restore the first appeal No.29 of 2009 and the interim application filed therein to their original file.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first appeal No.29 of 2009 was listed on 29.11.2013. As inspite of repeated calls no one turned up for the parties to the appeal the said appeal as well as the interim application therein were dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further submitted, that the learned lawyer earlier appearing for the petitioners-appellants did not inform the petitioners about the dismissal of the appeal and the petitioners remained ignorant about the same till September, 2017 and only in September, 2017 when they enquired the matter from reliable sources, the appellants came to know about the dismissal of the said appeal and after obtaining the certified copy, the petitioners-appellants engaged a new set of lawyers and have filed the petition for restoration of the said first appeal No.29 of 2009 along with the interim application to their original file. It is also submitted that the petitioners-appellants have a very good case and unless the delay is condoned, they will be highly prejudiced.