ORDER : 1. The present misc. appeal is preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 25.08.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Behror, District Alwar whereby learned Court below dismissed the application of appellant-applicant submitted under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC (which is treated as Order 9 Rule 9 CPC) with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by one Udai Ram for declaration and cancellation of sale deed, correction with perpetual injunction against the defendant Ramotar and Gyarsi Devi, Sub-Registrar, Behror and Tehsildar (Land-holder), Behror on 25.11.2011. During pendency of the suit plaintiff Udai Ram expired on 14.12.2009. Thereafter, appellant-petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC on 06.10.2010 which was pending for reply. On 27.09.2013, since no-one appeared on behalf of applicant, therefore the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, on 01.10.2013, one Dalip Singh natural father of appellant filed an application for restoration of the suit (the application is wrongly filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which is treated as under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC). Thereafter, another application for restoration of the suit was filed by the appellant-applicant Anil Kumar on 13.04.2015. Both the applications were heard together and dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.08.2015. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.08.2015, appellant-applicant Anil Kumar preferred this misc. appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. N.R. Choudhary submits that appellant is residing at Mumbai in connection of his job, therefore he was not aware regarding dismissal of the suit/ application and failed to file the application for restoration in prescribed period. Without considering this fact, learned Court below wrongly dismissed the application of restoration with application seeking condonation of delay. 5. He submits that in this type of application, Court should be liberal and should impart substantial justice. 6. Learned counsel relied on K. Rudrappa vs. Shivappa reported in RBJ (12) 2005 235. 7. Per contra Mr. Sriram Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 and Mr. 5. He submits that in this type of application, Court should be liberal and should impart substantial justice. 6. Learned counsel relied on K. Rudrappa vs. Shivappa reported in RBJ (12) 2005 235. 7. Per contra Mr. Sriram Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Varun Chaudhary learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 & 4 supported the impugned order and submit that Dalip Singh is natural father of appellant- Anil Kumar and on instructions of Anil Kumar, he filed application for restoration on 01.10.2015 which shows that Anil Kumar was well aware about the dismissal of the suit/ application before 01.10.2013 even though he filed the restoration application on 13.04.2015 i.e. delayed by 18 months. 8. He submits that limitation once starts cannot stop and the ground that he is residing at Mumbai in connection of his livelihood cannot be considered for condonation of delay. 9. He further submits that the facts of the case of K. Rudrappa vs. Shivappa (supra) are altogether distinguishable as in that case applicant was not having knowledge regarding the pendency of the case as his father filed the case, who has expired but in the case in hand appellant was well aware about the suit and he during pendency of the suit filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased-plaintiff, therefore the case law cited by the appellant is distinguishable. 10. Lastly, he submits that the appeal devoid merit, therefore same may be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 12. From the perusal of record of Court below, it seems that the suit was dismissed on 27.09.2013, thereafter within a week an application for restoration was filed by the natural father of appellant on 01.10.2013, which shows that appellant was well aware about the dismissal of the suit/ application, still he filed the restoration application on 13.04.2015 which is delayed by more than 18 months and no reasonable explanation is given for condonation of such inordinate delay. 13. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned. 14. 13. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned. 14. In the matter of K. Rudrappa vs. Shivappa, appellant was not aware about the pendency of the suit which was filed by his father and the suit was dismissed, when it came in his knowledge that one suit is filed by his father has been dismissed, he immediately filed an application for restoration but here in the case in hand appellant was well aware still he knowingly failed to file application for restoration in prescribed period, therefore considering all these facts, learned Court below rightly dismissed the application of restoration with application seeking condonation of delay, which doesn’t require any interference by this Court, therefore the appeal devoid merit which is hereby dismissed.