This order shall dispose of Miscellaneous Application No.575 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for restoration of the revision petition, which dismissed in default on 13.3.2013 due to the non-appearance of the petitioner as well as its counsel. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed, in which no period of delay has been mentioned.

          It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner/applicant, that on 13.3.2013 when the matter was listed for hearing, he could not appear due to his illness and vakalatnama also could not be filed. Further, irrepairable loss would be caused to the petitioner if the matter is not decided on merit.

          On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents,  that there is a long delay of about six months in filing the restoration application. Moreover, no sufficient cause whatsoever seeking condonation of delay has been shown.

          Petitioner/complainant had initially filed a consumer complaint  before the District Forum against the  respondent, which was dismissed.

           Appeal filed by the petitioner challenging order of District Forum, before the State Commission was also dismissed.

          In  the  application  for restoration,  the   main   ground is, that  due to personal illness of the counsel, which continued
for a long time, even vakalatnama could not be filed and matter remained unrepresented.

          It has  nowhere been mentioned in the application as to who was the counsel for the petitioner who was ill on the date of dismissal of the petition. Admittedly, no vakalatnama of the present counsel was there at the time of dismissal of the petition. Further,  it has nowhere been stated as to what was the nature of ailment of the counsel who fell ill and when he recovered. Present application is absolutely silent on these material aspects. Even otherwise, there is no explanation as to why petitioner was not present on 13.3.2013.

          Be that as it may, the application for restoration was filed only on 16.9.2013, i.e. more than five months after the  expiry of period of limitation. Even in the condonation application, no period has been mentioned at all.

           It is well settled that application for  restoration should not be allowed in a mechanical manner, since valuable right accrues to the opposite party.It has also been held in a catena of judgments, that the litigants should pursue their litigation in a diligent manner. Thus,  no sufficient  cause at all is made out for non appearance of the petitioner as

-4-

well as his counsel on 13.3.2013. Even otherwise, there is no sufficient explanation for the long delay of five months in not filing the restoration application.

          Accordingly,  no ground is made out for restoration of the petition which was rightly dismissed in default on 13.3.2013 due to non appearance of petitioner as well as its counsel.

          Accordingly, both the applications stand dismissed.

          File be consigned to record room.