JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a restoration application moved by the appellant which is accompanied by an affidavit seeking restoration of all the orders of dismissals passed by this court dismissing the restoration appellant subsequent to the original order of dismissal in default dated 9-3-84. The restoration application has been opposed by the respondent, and written objection has been filed. 2. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the second no Deal was preferred on 8-1-78 against the order dated 23-12-1977 passed by The. Additional Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly in appeal No. 56 of 1975 Under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of District Pilibhit which itself was preferred against the order dated 21-4-1975 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector First Class Bisalpur of district Pilibhit in a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.and L.R. Act. The appeal remained without ant material action and waiting for the records etc. till 2-4-79 and the counsel for the respondent also appeared. Meanwhile when the second appeal was dismissed in default of the appellant on 9-3-84, the restoration application moved on 9-5-84 was also dismissed in default on 7-10-1985 and the subsequent restoration moved was also dismissed in default on 5-12-85 while again the restoration application moved was dismissed in default on 6-1-86 and the subsequent restoration application was moved on 17-12-1987 and the same was dismissed in default on 22-9-88. Then again restoration application along with the stay application was moved which is now under consideration. It appears that there has been a tendency on the part of the appellant ant the counsel engaged not to care for appearance on the date fixed and to get the restoration applications dismissed on default and the matter is hanging in between the restoration and the dismissal since 9-3-84 when the second appeal was originally dismissed in default it is the limit of carelessness on the part of the appellant as well as the counsels engaged to put the order party to undue harassment in terms of all respect. The conduct and behaviour of the appellant goes to show that no proper interest is being taken in the final disposal of the second appeal as the appeal was ready for hearing when it was first dismissed in default and the matter in unnecessarily being prolonged for the last about 12 years without any fruitful result. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to 1987 R D to support his contentions that the matters in dispute are to be decided on merits m order to impart justice in the case. 4. The learned counsel for the objector opposing the restoration has contended that it is a matter of partition between the brothers and has been kept hanging for such long time and should not be allowed to remain hanging any more because there is no guarantee that if the present restoration application is allowed no further dismissal in default will be sought by the appellant to be followed by restoration. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I, therefore do not find any justification in favour of the restoration of the second appeal after restoring all the orders of dismissal in default passed during the period after the first order of dismissal in default because I am of a definite view that the appellant has got no merit in appeal preferred and it is for that reasons that the appeal is being kept hanging to cause as such loss and harassment to the respondent as may be possible by prolonging the case and also to enjoy fruit of the admission of appeal and stay of the Judgement and decree passed by the court below. The restoration application is therefore rejected and the orders relating admission of appeal and stay granted, if any, are vacated.