Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS restoration application has been filed for recalling the order dt. 19.07.2011 whereby the appeal was dismissed as peremptory order of the Court could not be complied with. The contention of the present applicants is that the defects were formal in nature and on restoration of appeal, the defects would be removed, hence the appeal be restored. The further contention of the present applicants is that he was not having knowledge of the peremptory order, hence defects could not be removed. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that in presence of Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, the peremptory order has been passed which was not complied with and in pursuance of peremptory order, the appeal has been rightly dismissed and restoration application has been filed after delay of 600 days and no reason has been assigned for the delay in application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act by the learned counsel for the applicants, only it has been stated that on 01.12.2012, the applicants came to know about the dismissal order of the appeal but what was the source of knowledge has not been explained and when the order was passed in presence of Advocate for the appellants, it does not lie in the mouth to say that they were not knowing about the peremptory order.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsels for the parties and perused the order of dismissal. Admittedly, the order dt. 21.04.2011 has been passed in presence of appellants' Advocate, hence the contention of the appellants is wrong on the face of it that they were not knowing about the impugned order and in pursuance of order dt. 21.04.2011, the appeal has been dismissed on 19.07.2011 and after a considerable delay of 600 days, the restoration application has been filed without any cause, much less reasonable cause. Hence there is no merit in the application. The restoration application is accordingly rejected.;