Judgment 1. This M. J. C. petition is both unfortunate and misconceived. It is two degrees away from the letters patent appeal which it seeks to be restored. L. P. A. No. 559 of 1999 was dismissed on 14.8.2001 when the following order was passed: "Mr. S. P. Tripathi, Advocate is present but he is not willing to argue this matter. This appeal is dismissed as not pressed." 2. A petition, being M. J. C. No. 465 of 2000, was then filed for the restoration of the appeal. In that restoration petition it was sought to be explained that the senior counsel engaged for appearing in the letters patent appeal was otherwise engaged and in that circumstance the Advocate on record made the statement as recorded in the order noted above. 3. It is debatable whether a restoration petition was maintainable in view of the order by which the letters patent appeal was dismissed. In any event that restoration petition was dismissed for default by order, dated 8.5.2000 when on its being called out, no one appeared to press the restoration petition. Now this fresh petition being M. J. C. No. 3300 of 2000 has been filed for restoration of the earlier restoration petition. 4. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner is engaged in a futile exercise and any further unpleasantness can be saved only by giving this matter a decent burial. 5. We are not inclined to entertain this second restoration petition and it is accordingly dismissed.