Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the order passed on 6-9-1991 dismissing the application in M.P. No. 70 of 1991 to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition in M.P. No. 228 of 1988 in MCOP. No. 209 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Srivilliputhur. 2. The appellant, minor Santhanamari, represented by her mother and guardian Bathrakali, has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal on 28-7-1987 stating that she met with an accident and sustained multiple injuries and seeking for the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. This was taken on file in MCOP. No. 209 of 1987. Though it was originally filed before the Sub-Court, Ramand at Madurai, on 11-8-1987, it was transferred to the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, the Tribunal. Thereafter, it was adjourned for several times. The matter was posted for appearance on 19-11-1987. Since there was a default, the said petition in MCOP. No. 209 of 1987 was dismissed on the said date. 3. On 7-5-1988, she filed an application to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the restoration application. The said delay was condoned and the restoration application was numbered as I.A. No. 228/88. This was also periodically adjourned. Since the third respondent did not appear, the matter was posted for paper publication. However, no steps have been taken for paper publication. Though it was directed by an order dated 18.8.1989 by giving time for making paper publication, the appellant did not take steps and there was a delay of 11 days and therefore, the appellant filed another application to condone the delay and the same was condoned on 4-11-1989. 4. Another application was filed on 12-4- 1990 for permitting the appellant to take steps for paper publication in Kerala. That application also was allowed in April, 1990. Thereafter, the matter; was periodically adjourned. Finally, it came up on 31-1-1991. Till then, no steps were taken. Therefore, the application for restoration was dismissed on 31-1-1991. Again on 11-2-1991, the appellant filed a petition to condone the absence on 31-1-1991 and to restore the restoration petition filed in I.A. No. 228 of 1998. That matter was also periodically adjourned. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition by an order dated 6-9-1991. That order is challenged in this appeal before this Court. 6. Again on 11-2-1991, the appellant filed a petition to condone the absence on 31-1-1991 and to restore the restoration petition filed in I.A. No. 228 of 1998. That matter was also periodically adjourned. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition by an order dated 6-9-1991. That order is challenged in this appeal before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the Tribunal ought to have restored the M.P. No. 228/88 since the client should not be allowed to suffer for the mistake of her counsel, who failed to attend the Court on 31-1-1991. He would also submit that the other batch of claim petitions by various claimants, with respect to the same accident, were allowed by the Tribunal by directing them to pay compensation. 7. Heard the counsel for parties. 8. The occurrence had taken place in the month of September, 1986. The claim petition was filed in the month of July, 1987. From then onwards, the matter was periodically adjourned. The diary extract would show that the appellant as well as the counsel has not shown sufficient interest in prosecuting the claim petition from the beginning. 9. Originally, the main O.P. was dismissed for default on 19-11-1987. Thereafter, restoration petition was filed on 7-5-1988. The record book shows that the said petition was adjourned for several times, since steps had not been taken to make a paper publication as far as the third respondent was concerned. There was also a delay in making paper publication. So, the appellant had filed an application to condone the delay and the same was also ordered. Then, the restoration application was dismissed on 31-1-1990. Even thereafter, there was a delay of 135 days. This delay was also condoned, and again restoration application was restored. But, as usual, for subsequent hearings, nobody cared to appear nor had taken steps for paper publication. Therefore, again the restoration application was dismissed on 31-1-1991, Thereafter, the application had been filed in M.P. No. 70 of 1991 to set aside the dismissal order in restoration petition in M.C.O.P. No. 209 of 1987. Either in the affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal or in the appeal memorandum of grounds filed before this Court, there are no details as to why the said application was allowed to be dismissed on 31-1-1991. The matter was posted only for paper publication. Either in the affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal or in the appeal memorandum of grounds filed before this Court, there are no details as to why the said application was allowed to be dismissed on 31-1-1991. The matter was posted only for paper publication. This was earlier ordered in the year 1989 itself. Why there were no steps, despite the lapse of two years, is not known. 10. Under these circumstances, there is no point in raising a ground in this appeal that the client should not suffer for the mistake of her counsel who failed to attend the Court on 31-1-1991. The failure to attend the Court by the Advocate on 31-1-1991 has not been taken as a ground for dismissing the petition. The only reason given for the dismissal of the petition is, despite the sufficient time given, no steps have been taken for paper publication. 11. Under these circumstances, none of the grounds urged in the Appeal Memorandum would merit acceptance, as in my view, the order impugned does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.