Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for Appellant.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for Appellant has moved an application for restoration of the appeal or recalling the order dated 10.11.2008 and consequential order dated 06.07.2010. Registry has pointed out that application is barred by limitation, therefore, another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application has also been filed. 5. It appears that misc. appeal was listed on 10.11.2008 and on the request of learned Counsel for Appellant, one week's time was allowed to remove the defects. Defect was that the typed copy of the impugned order has not been filed. The time granted by this Court expired on 17.11.2008. Learned Counsel for Appellant filed the typed copy of the order on 18.11.2008. The Appellant thereafter filed one application on 27.11.2008 for extension of time to remove the defects. The application was not listed before the Court and in pursuance of per emptory order dated 10.11.2008, the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) of this Court passed formal order of dismissal of the appeal on 06.07.2010. 6. Learned Counsel for Appellant contended that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in filing the application be condoned and appeal be restored to its original number. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for Appellant and also the reasons mentioned in both the applications duly supported by affidavits and I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the application in time. Delay in filing the application is, accordingly, condoned and the application for restoration of the appeal is allowed. 8. Consequently, the civil misc. appeal is restored to its original number.;