ORDER

S.N. Aggarwal, President - Aman Jain @ Amit Jain, respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner in the learned District Forum, Amritsar. It was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.2.2010.

2. The respondent filed the restoration application on the plea that the Counsel for the respondent had wrongly noted the date as 2.3.2010 and for that reason Counsel for the respondent could not appear in the District Forum on 24.2.2010.

3. It was accepted by the learned District Forum vide order dated 26.4.2010 on the payment of cost of Rs. 200 and the file was adjourned to 11.5.2010 for filing the written statement by the petitioner.

4. Hence this petition.

5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent was that neither costs have been paid nor the complaint could be restored. Hence it was prayed that petition be accepted and the impugned order dated 26.4.2010 be set-aside.

Relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as Gurcharan Singh v. Leena Rani and Others, 1997 (2) CCC 327 (P and H).

6. Considered.

7. The facts in the reported judgment were different. In that case, the suit was dismissed in default. Thereafter an application for restoration of