RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal was dismissed for non -prosecution vide order dated 28.02.2014, which reads thus: "Plaintiff -appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below through Sh.Sameer Sachdev and Sh. Ravi K.Matto, Advocates. The appeal came up for hearing on 29.07.2013. However, none appeared on behalf of the appellant and the case was adjourned to 04.10.2013. On 4.10.2013, Sh.O.P.Gupta, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and on his request, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2013. It is a matter of record that a 'Vakalatnama' dated 04.10.2013 by the appellant in favour of Sh. O.P.Gupta, Advocate with no objection from the earlier counsel is also on record. Thereafter, on request of Sh. O.P.Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, the case was adjourned to 21.02.2014. Again a request was made on 21.02.2014 for adjournment and the case was listed for hearing on 24.02.2014. On 24.2.2014, Sh. O.P.Gupta, Advocate was present in the Court alongwith appellant in person. Sh. O.P.Gupta, Advocate requested the Court that he be allowed to withdraw from the case. On request of Sh. O.P.Gupta, Advocate, he was allowed to withdraw from the appeal. Appellant -Darshan Lal who was present in the Court had sought the date to engage a new lawyer and the case was adjourned for today. However, today no one is present on behalf of the appellant. Keeping in view the conduct of the appellant, this appeal is dismissed for non -prosecution with costs which are assessed at Rs. 20,000/ -. Let the costs be deposited with the High Court Legal Services committee within one month from today."
(2.) THE instant application, i.e. CM No.4080 -C of 2014, has been filed for restoration of the appeal to its original number. At this stage, various orders passed by this Court from time to time in the aforesaid restoration application may be noticed, which read thus: Order dated 04.04.2014 "Counsel for the applicant -appellant states that he wants to deposit the costs as imposed vide order dated 28.02.2014. On request, adjourned to 30.04.2014." Order dated 05.05.2014 "As per office report, in compliance of order dated 28.2.2014, costs have been deposited. On request, adjourned to 13.05.2014." Order dated 13.05.2014 "On request, adjourned to 23.7.2014." Order dated 23.05.2014 "On request, adjourned to 31st July, 2014. To be shown in the Urgent List." Order dated 31.07.2014 "A written request for adjournment has been filed citing health problem of the counsel. Though there is no justification for adjournment, yet in the interest of justice, this appeal is ordered to be listed on 07.08.2014. In case, learned counsel representing the appellant is still having health problem, appellant is at liberty to make alternative arrangements." Applicant -appellant Darshan Lal is present in the Court in person. He has again sought an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is not well. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that every effort is being made by the applicant -appellant to prevent this Court from deciding this case. Thus, the applications are dismissed.;