JUDGMENT Amitav K Gupta, J. - This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of C.M.P No.565 of 2012, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.04.2016. 2. It transpires from the record that C.M.P. No.565 of 2012 was filed for restoration of C.M.P No.133 of 2005, which had been dismissed on 20.06.2016 for non-compliance of order dated 19.05.2006. 3. Heard. It is evident that no sufficient case is made out nor reasonable explanation given in filing the petition after a delay of nearly 539 days. It is noticed from the narration of the sequence of events that C.M.P No.133 of 2005 was not prosecuted for nearly eleven years consequently, the said civil miscellaneous petition dismissed, by order dated 20.06.2016, for non-compliance of order dated 19.05.2006. It is evident that the present civil miscellaneous petition for restoration of C.M.P No.133 of 2005, has been filed after an inordinate delay of 539 days and no sufficient cause is made out, on the contrary the petitioner has been grossly negligent in prosecuting the civil miscellaneous petitions. Such conduct of the petitioner does not call for any liberal or lenient approach by this Court. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh , (2010) 8 SCC 685 , in para-26 has held as follows: "26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." 5. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." 5. As discussed it is evident that the petitioner has been grossly negligent in prosecuting the case and at the cost of repetition it is noticed that no sufficient cause or reasonable explanation has been broughtforth to explain the delay. In the attending facts, this civil miscellaneous petition is, hereby, dismissed, as barred by limitation. 6. I.A. No.9950 of 2017 stands dismissed.