Judgment 1. In this case by an order dated 22-7-1955, two weeks time way allowed to file talbana etc. failing which the appeal was ordered to stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. For nun-compliance of that order the appeal stood dismissed on 6-8-1955, On 11-8-1935, it was represented by the learned advocate for the appellant that talbana etc. could be accepted even after the expiry of the peremptory time granted by an order of this Court and he cited a number of precedents. The matter came up for consideration on 23-8-1955, before Choudhary J. who was of the opinion that the appeal having already been dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order passed on 22-7-1955, talbana etc. could not be accepted until the appeal was restored. He has, however, referred this case to a Division Bench for orders. 2. In Second Appeal No. 1325 of 1948 on 19-8-1948 (Pat) (A) 14 days time was allowed to the appellant to deposit the deficit court-fee & to file the trial Court judgment failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. The trial Court judgment was filed within time but the deficit court-fee of annas six was not deposited within the time allowed. On 6-9-1948, the following order was recorded in that appeal: On filing the deficit court-fee of As. -/6/- today the appeal will proceed in usual course and order No. 4, dated 19-8-1948, is recalled." It does not appear from the above order under what circumstances the previous order was recalled, but it must have been done after the Court was satisfied that the paltry amount of six annas had not been deposited through some bona fide mistake. 3. In Second Appeal No. 1224 of 1948, on 25-11-1948 (Pat) (B) a Division Bench of this Court granted to the appellant three weeks time to file deficit court-fee failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. The amount of deficit court-fee was Rs. 19/15/-, But the appellant deposited Rs. 19/12/- only within the time granted. On 21-12-1948, Mr. D. N. Verma for the appellant represented to the learned Judges who had passed the order D/-25-11-1948, that by a bona fide mistake three annas less had been deposited and prayed that he be permitted to deposit the same without filing a restoration application. 19/15/-, But the appellant deposited Rs. 19/12/- only within the time granted. On 21-12-1948, Mr. D. N. Verma for the appellant represented to the learned Judges who had passed the order D/-25-11-1948, that by a bona fide mistake three annas less had been deposited and prayed that he be permitted to deposit the same without filing a restoration application. By an order dated 23-12-1948, their Lordships recalled their previous order, and permitted Mr. Verma to deposit the balance amount. They held that three annas deficit had not been put in through a a bona fide mistake. Their Lordships had in this connection referred to the order passed in S. A. No. 1325 of 1948 (Pat) (A). 4. In Second Appeal No. 1521 of 1951 on the 11-2-1952 (Pat) (C) two weeks lime was allowed to file deficit authentication lee failing which the memorandum, of appeal was to stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. From the office note in that case it appears that authentication fee of Bs. 4/3/-on all the three copies of the judgment and the decree was required to be filed but through oversight the appellant deposited within time authentication fee of Rs. 3/2/- only. Thus there was a deficit of lie. 1/1/-. This was probably due to the fact that the office of the advocate was under the impression that authentication fee was not due on all the three copies. On 5-3-1952, the same learned Judge who had passed the previous order extended the time for filing the deficit authentication fee up to 6-3-1952, 5. In our opinion, in all the three cases it was not considered necessary for the appellant to file a petition for restoration of the appeal as the learned Judges appear to have taken the view that there was sufficient compliance of the peremptory order passed in each of the appeals. They appear to have been satisfied that a paltry amount had not been deposited in each case through a bona fide mistake of the office of the advocate for the appellant. In the present case, however, the appellant had not complied with any portion of the peremtory order. The only ground urged by learned advocate for the appellant for dispensing with the filing of restoration petition is that the talbana money had already been deposited with him but through an oversight the same was not deposited in Court. In the present case, however, the appellant had not complied with any portion of the peremtory order. The only ground urged by learned advocate for the appellant for dispensing with the filing of restoration petition is that the talbana money had already been deposited with him but through an oversight the same was not deposited in Court. This, in our opinion, is no ground for dispensing with the restoration petition in the present case.