JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6th January, 2005 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota has dismissed the application for restoration filed by the petitioners. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1, Kamlawati Maisy lost her husband in a vehicular accident in the night of 31st December, 1987. Since the petitioner and her son (petitioner No. 2) were dependent on the deceased, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. Fourteen opportunities were given to the petitioners to produce their witness and evidence before the Court. However, despite a number of opportunities being given, the petitioners did not produce any witness or evidence before the Tribunal. Therefore, vide order dated 5th December, 1997, the claim petition was dismissed. Subsequently, on 20th December, 1997, a restoration application was filed. However, vide order dated 6th January, 2005, the said application was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Vinod Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently pleaded that a last opportunity be given to the petitioners to produce their witness and evidence before the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Chitra Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 5. One of the cardinal principles of law is that people have to be vigilant towards their right. In case, a litigant is not vigilant in defence of his/her rights, the Courts will not rush to the rescue of such litigation. In the present case, the alleged accident occurred on 31st December, 1987, the claim petition was kept pending for the long years. During this period, fourteen opportunities were given to the petitioners to produce their witness and evidence. Despite, the number of opportunities being granted to the petitioners, they kept mum. Therefore, after a lapse of ten years, the learned Tribunal had no other option, but to dismiss the case for non-prosecution. The petitioners have not shown any cogent reason for their long silence. Thus, the learned Tribunal was also justified in not restoring the claim petition to its original number. After a lapse of twenty two years, it would be highly unfair and unjust to restore the claim petition to its original number. The petitioners have not shown any cogent reason for their long silence. Thus, the learned Tribunal was also justified in not restoring the claim petition to its original number. After a lapse of twenty two years, it would be highly unfair and unjust to restore the claim petition to its original number. For, an unnecessary burden shall be placed on the owner and the Insurance Company to defend their case after a long lapse of twenty two years. 6. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******