JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. 1. No one appears for the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for private respondent no.-3. 2. We have perused the order under appeal dated 11.5.2006. The writ Court by a well considered order and discussion of the relevant dates has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was indeed not vigilant about the protection of his rights and pursuing matters with diligence. The discussion of his conduct with regard to dates and stages of the litigation leaves us satisfied of his negligent behaviour because of which we are disinclined to interfere with the impugned order under appeal. 3. The lack of diligence in the appeal is also apparent from the failure to appear before us also. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. It shall be obligatory for the appellant to annex a copy of the present order in any application for restoration.