( 1 ) THIS Of Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay caused in preferring the restoration application in company Petition No. 91 of 1999, which was dismissed for default on 12. 04. 2001. Order dated 12. 04. 2001 is reproduced which depicts the approach of the learned counsel for the petitioner a the relevant time:" The matter was listed yesterday on Board. It was mentioned in the morning that it may be kept at 2. 15 pm yesterday. At 2. 15 PM it was mentioned that it is not convenient for Mr. Oza, learned advocate to attend the matter as he was busy in some other court. The matter is kept today with the specific understanding that it will be proceeded with. Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate is not present. Hence dismissed for default. Rule is discharged. "from the facts recorded in order, it is clear that non- appearance of the learned advocate was not an inadvertent lapse on the part of the learned advocate. The learned advocate had three opportunities to appear before the court. The matter was listed on 11. 04. 2001. In the morning a request was made to keep it at 2. 15. The request was granted. The matter was kept at 2. 15. At 2. 15, it was mentioned that as the learned advocate is busy in some other Court, the matter may be kept tomorrow, i. e. on 12. 04. 2001. That request was also granted as mentioned in the order with an understanding that on 12. 04. 2001, it will be proceeded with. But then the learned advocate did not appear, not only that, he did not extend the courtesy to get the matter mentioned, either to keep it back or to adjourn the matter to some other day. ( 2 ) THIS is about the conduct of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner on 11. 04. 2001 and 12. 04. 2001. So far as the conduct of the party is concerned, it is reflected in the present application/s, for condonation of delay and restoration. The main matter (Company Petition No. 91 of 1999) was dismissed on 12. 04. 2001. In application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated in paragraph No. 7 that:". . . . . . . . . So far as the conduct of the party is concerned, it is reflected in the present application/s, for condonation of delay and restoration. The main matter (Company Petition No. 91 of 1999) was dismissed on 12. 04. 2001. In application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated in paragraph No. 7 that:". . . . . . . . . the applicant was under a bona fide belief that the aforesaid proceedings are pending before the Honourable High Court of Gujarat and the outcome of the case would be informed to the applicant as and when the company petition would be decided. . . . . "what follows is important:"the applicant states that, however, now, it is revealed that the aforesaid company petition came to be dismissed for default by the Honourable Court vide order dated 12th April, 2001. The applicant, therefore, filed the aforesaid application for restoration of the Company Petition No. 91 of 1999, which came to be dismissed for default by the honourable Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) on the 12th April, 2001. "paragraph No. 8 of the application reads as under:"the applicant states that the aforesaid order dismissing the Company Petition for default was not sent to the applicant nor was it communicated to the applicant by the learned advocate at any point of time"what follows is again important:"the applicant further states that, it was being informed to the applicant, as and when the status regarding the matter was being sought from the office of the learned advocate, that the intimation would be given about the outcome of the matter. . . . . . . . . "in the same paragraph it is stated by the applicant that:". . . . . However, even for a considerably long time, nothing could be heard. Thereafter, the applicant was informed that the status report can be obtained about the position of the matter by making appropriate inquiry at the Computer Section. In view of the above, the applicant made inquiries on the 30th December, 2005 about the status of the matter and, upon inquiry, it has been revealed that the matter came to be dismissed on the 12th April, 2001 by the Honourable Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, j. ). A copy of the status report obtained by the applicant on the 30th December, 2005 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to this application. A copy of the status report obtained by the applicant on the 30th December, 2005 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to this application. " ( 3 ) THE Court is not ready to believe that the applicant firm in the name and style of M/s. Harshad Shah and Co. , which is pursuing the matter in a Company Court will have unexhausted patience in the matter FOR LONG FOUR YEARS. Even after obtaining the status report on 30th December 2005, the present application is filed only on 6th february 2006. The application is affirmed on 27th January 2006. This shows the conduct of the applicant that he too has also taken the Court proceedings vary lightly. The application for restoration which is registered as misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No. 305 of 2006 was though affirmed on 27th January 2006, was filed on 6th February 2006 only. An application for condonation of delay was also filed on 6th February 2006, though it was affirmed on 27th January 2006. This speaks about the conduct of the party. ( 4 ) WHY only application for restoration and application for condonation of delay, even the main matter was also not pursued with required sincerity. It will not be out of place to refer to the proceedings of company Petition No. 91 of 1999. It was filed on 1st April 1999 and was moved for urgent orders only on 8th July 1999 by filing an urgent note. The first order obtained on 9th july 1999 was adjournment to 16th July 1999. On 16th July 1999, it was got adjourned to 19th July 1999. On 19th July 1999, the Court issued notice returnable on 23rd August 1999. Thereafter on 21st September 1999, this Court (Coram: S. D. Dave, J.) passed the following order:" This petition came to be admitted in the first session today, that is on September 21, 1999. The orders would go to show that, it has been said therein that there was a say coming from Ld. counsel mr. K. V. Shelat on an earlier occasion that he would be entering his appearance on behalf of the respondent Company. I have said in my orders dated september 21, 1999, that is today that, neither the appearance has been entered by the Ld. counsel mr. Shelat nor the affidavit in reply has been filed. counsel mr. K. V. Shelat on an earlier occasion that he would be entering his appearance on behalf of the respondent Company. I have said in my orders dated september 21, 1999, that is today that, neither the appearance has been entered by the Ld. counsel mr. Shelat nor the affidavit in reply has been filed. These are the two grounds on which I had thought it fit to admit the petition. Ld. counsel Mr. Shelat comes before me in company of Ld. counsel Mr. Nirav chokshi for Ld. counsel Mr. Yatin Oza, and says that, he has already filed a note of appearance on august 16, 1999. Any how it is a fact that the name of Ld. counsel has not been shown on the board. Looking to the above said position, it appears that the orders regarding admission of the petition passed by me today require to be recalled. I order accordingly. The Respondent Company shall now come with the affidavit in reply on October 07, 1999. The respondent Company also may come with the proposal for the payment of the dues of the petitioner creditor. S. O. to October 07, 1999. "except adjournment, no further orders are found to have been obtained before the matter came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. ( 5 ) MR. PRAKASH K. Jani, the learned advocate, who is now appearing for the applicant relied upon a decision of the honble the Apex Court in the matter of RAFIQ AND ANOTHER vs. MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 1981 S. C. 1400. The learned advocate submitted that it is held by the Honble the Apex Court that, a party should not suffer for misdemeanour or inaction of his counsel. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, it is not only a misdemeanour or inaction on the part of the counsel, but it is also misdemeanour and inaction on the part of the party concerned. Aster the matter was dismissed on 12. 04. 2001, the party remained satisfied with the reply given by the office of the learned advocate about the status of the matter till 2005. Aster the matter was dismissed on 12. 04. 2001, the party remained satisfied with the reply given by the office of the learned advocate about the status of the matter till 2005. Very conveniently it is stated that it was in 2005 that the advocates office informed him to inquired about the status of the matter from the computer section and therefore, the party inquired from the computer section on 30th December 2005 and on having learnt about the dismissal of the matter for non-prosecution, the party filed the restoration application alongwith an application for condonation of delay only on 6th February 2006. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision of the Honble the Apex Court has no application to the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate next relied upon a decision of the Honble the Apex Court in the matter of SMT. LACHI tewari AND OTHERS VS. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND others, reported in AIR 1984 S. C. 41. The learned advocate submitted that the Honble The Apex Court was pleased to hold that, rule nisi obtained seven years previously discharged for default of appearance " the same should be restored as nothing more could be expected of petitioner who had engaged three lawyers. the aforesaid judgment of the Honble the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in a case before the Honble the Apex Court, the rule nisi was issued in the year 1976, the matter came up for hearing on 21st April 1983 for the first time. There the division Bench of the High Court made the following order:"none to press this application. Accordingly the same is rejected. The rule is discharged. That stay order granted by this Court on 6-5-1976 stands vacated. "what follows is important. There, within 10 days an application was moved, whereas in the present case, the applicant continued to make inquiry in the office of the learned advocate for long four years and it was only in december 2005 that the advocates office informed the party him that, to know the status of the matter an inquiry be made at the computer section. After making an inquiry on 30th December 2005, a restoration application alongwith an application for condonation of delay was filed only on 6th February 2006, which cannot be said to be a prompt action on the part of the party. The Honble the Apex Court has observed in paragraph NO. 3 as under:"it appears that soon thereafter within a span of about 10 days an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner pointing out to the court the circumstances in which neither the petitioner nor his three learned counsel were present and sought the indulgence of the court to recall the order dated April 21, 1983 on the ground that April 21, 1983 happened to be a day on which the court reopened after Bihu holidays and that the learned senior Counsel who had gone to Calcutta during the vacation had not been able to return on account of irregularity of air services. It was further stated that the two other learned counsel were busy in courts Nos. 2 and 3 when the matter was called for hearing and a request was made to pass over the matter. This ground did not find favour with the learned Judges of the High Court and the application for recalling the order was rejected. Hence this appeal by special leave. "in the present case, the learned counsel did not appear before the Court on 11. 04. 2001. A request was made to keep the matter at 2. 15. The request was granted. On 2. 15 again a request was made and with a specific understanding that on 12. 04. 2001, the learned advocate will appear and proceed with the matter, the matter was adjourned to 12. 04. 2001. On 12. 04. 2001, the learned advocate not only did not appear before the Court, but also not got the matter mentioned. Therefore, the Court was left with no other option, but to dismiss the matter for non-prosecution. Thus, even remotely, the facts of the present do not have any similarity to the facts of the case which was before the Honble the Apex Court and therefore, this decision does not help the applicant. ( 7 ) THE learned advocate next relied upon a decision of the Honble the Apex Court in the matter of MALKIAT SINGH and ANOTHER VS. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS, reported in air 1998 S. C. 258. ( 7 ) THE learned advocate next relied upon a decision of the Honble the Apex Court in the matter of MALKIAT SINGH and ANOTHER VS. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS, reported in air 1998 S. C. 258. The learned advocate submitted that the Honble the Apex Court was pleased to hold that, defendant getting knowledge of ex parte decree only when they approached the counsel " application to set aside decree filed by defendants within 4 days of knowledge " defendants cannot be said to be careless/negligent. on the face of it the facts of the case are different then the facts of the case on hand. Even at the cost of repetition it is required to be stated that in the present case, even after obtaining the knowledge of the matter being dismissed for default on 30th December 2005, the restoration application alongwith an application for condonation of delay was filed on 6th February 2006. Therefore, the decision of the Honble the Apex Court does not help the applicant and no relief as sought for can be granted. ( 8 ) THE learned advocate next relied upon a decision of the Honble the Apex Court in the matter of PRAKASH seshmal JAIN VS. SUKHMAL and SONS AND OTHERS, reported in air 1999 S. C. 2630. The learned advocate could not point out as to how the said decision of the Honble the Apex court has any application to the facts of the present case. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, this Court finds that no case is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the OJ Civil Application No. 33 of 2006 fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, registration of Misc. Civil application (Stamp) No. 305 of 2006 is refused. .