M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the limitation application (I.A. No.244 of 2006) is allowed and delay in filing the instant restoration application is condoned.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the application which has been filed for restoration of First Appeal No.95 of 1999(R) which stood dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 13.3.2000.
(3.) The First Appeal was originally filed before this Court and by order dated 13.3.2000, six weeks' time was allowed for filing deficit court fee and authentication fee. Since the order was peremptory in nature, the Office gave a note that the appeal stood dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 13.3.2000. In the meantime, because of increased pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, the appeal was sent to the District Judge, Seraikella. The District Judge, Seraikella after receiving the records of First Appeal No.95 of 1999, issued notice to both the parties. On 19.12.2005 when the record of the First Appeal was put up before the District Judge, Seraikella, it was pointed out by the advocate that the appeal stood dismissed while pending in the High Court for non-compliance of order dated 13.3.2000. The District Judge after perusal of the order and the notes given by the office of the concerned section of the High Court, held that the appeal cannot proceed. This has necessiated filing of the instant application for restoration. Although in the restoration application, the reasons have been shown for non-compliance of the order dated 13.3.2000, but till date, the Court fee amount has neither been paid before this Court in appeal nor before the District Judge after the record of First Appeal was transferred.;