Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. This is one of those cases where the Court has noticed that the defects, as referred by the Stamp Reporter, have not been removed by the Counsel for the appellant. The defects are:- (a) Section 5 application has not been filed for condonation of delay. (b) Statutory deposit as required under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act has not been made and (c) court fees of Rs.80/- has not been paid. Apart from above, this appeal is also barred by limitation by 19 days for which Section 5 application has to be filed for condonation of delay. 2. Since neither full court fees nor statutory amount was paid and the matter was not being attended by the Counsel, it was earlier dismissed for default. Today also the Counsel did not appear when the case was called out and was being prayed by another advocate for passing over the case on the ground that the learned advocate, engaged in this case, had gone for medical check up. It was then, while perusing the order sheet and the report of the Stamp Reporter that we found the appeal was not maintainable for the reason of the defects. Hence we directed the Counsel, making prayer for passing over, to inform the learned Counsel engaged in the case to be present on the next day along with his client, the appellant so as to know the court of not paying the full court fees and also non-payment of the statutory deposit, as the appeal would not be maintainable with these payments, which are the condition precedent for maintaining the appeal. 3. We fail to understand that when the Counsel had received Rs.5000/-including court fee and expenses to be incurred in filing the appeal, why only Rs.40/- was deposited towards court fees and not Rs.80/- as required. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay was filed. We also notice from record that when the case came up before this Court for the first time on 25th July, 2016, neither the counsel for the appellant appeared nor any accommodation was sought for on his behalf and, as such, the appeal was dismissed for default on that date. 4. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay was filed. We also notice from record that when the case came up before this Court for the first time on 25th July, 2016, neither the counsel for the appellant appeared nor any accommodation was sought for on his behalf and, as such, the appeal was dismissed for default on that date. 4. It further appears that application for restoration was moved and by an order dated 5th August, 2016, the application being CAN 7623 of 2016 was directed to be served upon the respondents by Speed Post with acknowledgement due card. The matter then appeared on 3rd November, 2016. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant the application for restoration being CAN 7623 of 2016 was allowed and the appeal was restored. 5. Thereafter the matter was listed yesterday i.e. on 5th January, 2017 before this Court when on perusal of record, we noticed all the aforesaid facts. Learned Counsel for the appellant was not present before us yesterday. A mention was made by Mr. Hemanta Kumar Das, learned Counsel, on behalf of the advocate on record, Mr. Vivekananda Bauri for passing over the case. 6. On query made by this Court, learned Counsel submitted that court fees had been deposited yesterday when the court fixed the case for today but neither section 5 application has been filed nor statutory deposit as required was deposited. 7. Advocate on record at the outset tendered his unconditional apology before this court and informed that Sri M. Sarkar @ Dipak Kumar Sarkar, son of Golaknath is the owner of the offending vehicle, who has preferred this appeal, informed us that he had paid the settled amount of Rs.5000/- to the advocate on record for moving this appeal and that he had not been informed by the advocate to deposit Rs.25,000/- towards statutory deposit in terms of the proviso under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. We asked the advocate on record why he had not informed about the statutory deposit to the appellant before filing of the appeal. There is no answer. It appears that by paying half of the court fees the intention of the advocate is to keep the case pending as defective one. 9. Our observation above also strengthen the fact that till yesterday the defects were not removed as it was noticed by us number of time before. There is no answer. It appears that by paying half of the court fees the intention of the advocate is to keep the case pending as defective one. 9. Our observation above also strengthen the fact that till yesterday the defects were not removed as it was noticed by us number of time before. However, when we observed that we would take strict action in the matter, the balance court fees of Rs.40/- has been paid but other defects were not removed. It is settled law that an appeal without statutory deposit is not maintainable. 10. For all the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed. 11. Since the appeal is dismissed the application for stay being CAN 4912 of 2016 has become infructuous and is also dismissed. 12. Learned Tribunal is directed to proceed for recovery of the awarded amount along with interest, if not paid, in accordance with law. 13. We, however, in the facts and circumstances above, warn Sri Vivekananda Bauri, the advocate on record not to file such petition or application in future without paying proper court fees or statutory deposits, as required under law and remove any defect(s) immediately reported by the Stamp Reporter. In case he does any such thing in future, the Court shall take stern action against him. However, since he has tendered his unconditional apology, this time we leave him with a warning only as stated above. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.