ORDER : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. On 1.9.2017, below quoted order was passed in present application: “Despite the fact that on 28.08.2017 the Court had specifically informed the learned advocate for the applicant that on any ground further time will not be granted and he should conclude the hearing of the application on 1.9.2017 and the Court will pass appropriate order on 1.9.2017, the learned advocate for applicant is not present. It is informed that learned advocate for applicant has filed sick note. The Court would give benefit of doubt and adjourn the proceedings because the learned advocate has filed sick note. However, it is clarified that on the next date, time will not be granted on any ground, including leave note or sick note, and if learned advocate for applicant is not present, then also appropriate order in this application will be passed upon considering the submissions by the opponent and the material available on record of the application. Though it is not necessary, it is clarified that leave note or sick note will not be considered. S.O. to 4.9.2017.” 2. Ordinarily, the Court would liberally deal with application seeking condonation of delay or for restoration of the proceedings. 3. However, for the reasons and circumstances mentioned in the reply, file by opponent in respect of present application, wherein the opponent has raised objection against request for condonation of delay as well as restoration of Misc. Civil Application No. 1984 of 2017, the application appears to be hit by negligence. 4. It is pertinent that despite the order dated 1.9.2017, no one has attended hearing today. 5. When the matter is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the applicant is not present. 6. Any request for pass-over or adjournment is also not made. 7. The applicant has neglected the hearing despite above quoted order. 8. Under the circumstances, the application is dismissed for non-prosecution.