Bhanwar Singh, President—None responds on behalf of the appellant to the call of this appeal although the cause list of date was reflected and uploaded on Commission’s website available on the internet.

2. Sri B.K. Upadhyaya learned counsel for the respondent Shambhu Nath is present.

The appeal being of the year 2003 is taken up for decision on merit.

We have perused the record and heard Sri B.K. Upadhyaya.

3. By means of this appeal three orders dated 11.11.2003, 29.1.2003 and 12.9.2003 have been challenged.

4. Shortly stated the respondent/complainant Shambhu Nath filed a complaint No. 296/1997 against the appellant Bhrigu Nath for recovery of his money amounting to Rs.15,000 which the former had paid to the latter with a view to buy a cow. The said payment was made on 30.3.1993. As alleged by the complainant neither the cow was supplied to the respondent nor the above-mentioned amount remitted to him. In the situation, the complainant was obliged to file his complaint No. 296/1997 which was allowed ex-parte on 22.12.1997. The appellant by virtue of the said order was directed to refund the complainant’s money alongwith interest @ Rs.10% p.a. and in case the payment was not made within one month from the date of judgment interest at the higher rate of 15% p.a. was payable.

5. More than four years after, the appellant filed a restoration application which was dismissed on merit on 29.1.2003. Then another restoration application was filed but this too met the same fate of dismissal on 12.9.2003 and yet once more an application for setting aside of the two earlier orders dated 29.1.2003 and 12.9.2003 was filed but this too was dismissed on 11.11.2003. The appellant had sought for setting aside of all these three orders dated 29.1.2003, 12.9.2003 and 11.11.2003.

6. It is significant to note that all the three orders were passed on merit but the complainant did not challenge the first order dated 29.1.2003 by way of filing an appeal, instead he preferred another application for review of first order dated 29.1.2003 and even though the said application was dismissed on 12.9.2003, he preferred a third application for restoration of the complaint after setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 22.12.1997 but this application too was dismissed on 11.11.2003. Obviously the appellant unnecessarily filed three restoration applications one after another and such step of the appellant has to be termed to be vexatious. The appellant was expected to have preferred the appeal soon after his restoration application was dismissed on 29.1.2003. Then a question arises if he had to seek a review of the said order, why he waited for more than eight months by moving a fresh application on 1.9.2003. It appears that the appellant was filing vexatious proceedings one after another with a view to cause further delay and when his second application was dismissed on 12.9.2003 he did learn no lesson to challenge the two orders by way of filing an appeal. We wonder what prompted him to move a fresh restoration application on 20.9.2003. We can only presume that he was proceeding with frivolous applications without caring for the law and procedure. When the two Misc. applications for restoration of the complaint and for recall of the earlier order were dismissed, the third application moved for the same purpose was absolutely frivolous. Even though, the first application was dismissed on 29.1.2003 by means of a detailed order passed by the Forum below, the appellant has not offered any plausible reason as to why he was proceeding in vexatious manner leaving aside the proper procedure he should have followed by filing an appeal soon after the restoration application was dismissed on 29.1.2003. He questioned the propriety of the said order in the instant appeal, filed on 8.12.2003, which is absolutely and utterly time barred. Likewise the appeal against the order dated 12.9.2003 is barred by limitation.

7. It appears that the appellant Bhrigu Nath