ORDER S.S. Negi, I.A.S :- This application filed by Shri Hans Ran son of Shri Masadi resident of village Fihar. Illaqua Kamalan. Tehsil Sarkaghat. Distt. Mandi seeks restoration of revision petition No.81/99 titled as Hans Raj v. State of H.P which was dismissed in default by this court on 06.04.1999. 2. The facts of the case are that the present applicant Shri Hans Raj preferred a revision petition in this court on 17.06.1997 under rule 30 of H.P. Nautor Land Rules.1968 against the order dated 14.08.1986 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Kangra in an appeal file No.64/85. 3. The case was listed for hearing on 06.04.1999.when neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared dispite notice and hence the revison petition was dismissed in default on 6.4.1999. 4. The applicant in his application has sought restoration of the revision petition on the ground that the plaintiffs had no notice of the hearing on 6.4.1999 and applicant being an old and aged person was not able to visit this court due to ill health and poor economic condition. The applicant further submit that he was not aware at the date of dismissal of his case, therefore the delay in filing the application for restoration of the revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional as such he has requested that his case may be restored to its original number and heard on its merits and decided in accordance with law. 5. 1 have heard the learned vice counsel for the applicant and have perused the record. From the perusal of case file i.e. revision petition No.81/99. it transpires that the applicant/petitioner was initially summoned to appear in the court on 3.3.1998. The summon was received by the applicant/petitioner personally but he did not| appear in the court personally but instead he was represented by a lawyer. The applicant/petitioner was again served a notice to appear on. 4.12.1998. He received the notice personally and as represented by a lawyer on whose request the case was adjourned to 6.4.1999 on which date none appeared and consequently the Case was dismissed in default for non prosecution. The applicant/petitioner was again served a notice to appear on. 4.12.1998. He received the notice personally and as represented by a lawyer on whose request the case was adjourned to 6.4.1999 on which date none appeared and consequently the Case was dismissed in default for non prosecution. The contention of the applicant at this stage that he was not issued any notice by this court and he was no aware of the date of hearing of the case, is without substance as has been shown above that the applicant/petitioner received the notice twice and he was duly represented by a lawyer. Since none represented applicant/ petitioner on 6.4.1999. nor was there any request for adjournment etc.either by the petitioner himself or through the counsel, there was no alternative before my learned predecessor but to dismiss the case in default. 6. Thereafter the petitioner filed application for restoration of the revision on 22.11.2001 after a period of more than 2 years 7 months. He has not shown any plausible cause much less sufficient cause to explain the delay. The only cause made out in the application is that no notice was issued to the plaintiffs and that the petitioner is an old man. As per the record, it has been clearly brought out that the notices were received by the petitioner twice and. counsel appeared on his behalf in the court Shri Dushyant Dadwal. Advocate, who is pressing the restoration application also appeared on behalf of petitioner on 3.3.1998 also, whereafter he did not care to enquire about the date of the case. The petitioner and his counsel are found to be indolent in pursuing the matter and therefore delay to the extent of more than 2 years 7 months cannot be excused. In view of the discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretion and indulgence of the court and consequently application for delay is rejected. 7. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.