Restoration Application Dismissed Due to 805-Day Delay; Appeal Dismissed for Non-Filing of Paper Book, Delay Not Excused.

The HC dismissed the restoration application due to an 805-day delay in filing after the appeal was dismissed for non-filing of the paper book. The Court found the appellant's claim of unawareness of the dismissal unconvincing, as the order clearly stated the appeal would be automatically dismissed if the paper book was not filed. Additionally, the contention regarding the paper book being dispensed with by a Co-ordinate Bench was rejected, as it should have been raised earlier. The review application seeking condonation of the delay was also dismissed, affirming the decision not to restore the matter.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing restoration application after the dismissal of the appeal due to non-filing of paper book.
2. Contention regarding the subsequent paper book being dispensed with by a Co-ordinate Bench.
3. Review application seeking condonation of delay in filing restoration application.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the restoration application after the dismissal of the appeal due to non-filing of the paper book. The Court noted that despite the dismissal of the appeal for not filing the paper book, the applicant had not filed it even with the present application. The Court observed that the ground for condonation of the delay of 805 days was that the appellant was not aware of the dismissal of the appeal. However, the Court found it difficult to believe that the counsel was not aware of the consequences of the order dated 31.01.2012, which clearly stated that the appeal would stand dismissed automatically if the paper book was not filed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the restoration application, stating that there was no good ground to condone the delay.

2. Another issue raised was the contention regarding the subsequent paper book being dispensed with by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Court opined that this contention should have been raised before the bench where the matter came up for restoration. The Court deemed it inappropriate to allow this review, despite the paper book being submitted by the lawyer before the order was passed. Therefore, the Court decided not to restore the matter based on this contention.

3. Lastly, the review application sought condonation of the delay in filing the restoration application. The Court, considering the circumstances and the arguments presented, concluded that the review application deserved to be rejected. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application, affirming its decision to not restore the matter.

---