VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Nos.35478/2016 (restoration), 35479/2016 (condonation of delay) & RSA No.328/2014

1. These applications for restoration and condonation of delay along with the main Regular Second Appeal were argued in the morning by the counsel Mr. Saurabh Kansal. After arguments, it was found that neither the applications nor the main RSA had any substance and therefore the appellant who was present in person took time for giving instructions to his counsel as to whether the appeal was to be pressed on merits or the appellant does not press the applications and the appellant should only seek refund of Rs.25,000/- deposited as pre-conditional costs when the appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 11.2.2015. The matter was passed over.

2. After a pass over the appellant appears in person and states that a judgment be passed on merits. 3. So far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned, it is seen that there is no sufficient reason given for condonation of delay of 552 days in filing of the application for restoration because it is not believable that appellant would not have contacted his counsel right from 11.2.2015 till March, 2016 when he received t