ORDER CM No. 2736/2020 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to lockdown in the city because of Corona-virus, he had not been able to get the court fees to be annexed on the petition. He seeks some time to do the needful after the court re-opens. 2. The application is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to submit the Court fees in the Registry in terms of Circular No. 16/GS dated 29.03.2020 issued by the High Court. 3. The application is disposed of accordingly. WP (C) No. 1032/2020 (O & M) 4. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide which his application seeking restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.09.2019, was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner lost tract of the case as his counsel advised him that he is not required to regularly appear for hearing as his personal presence is not required. Otherwise also, he used to remain outside the State on account of his employment. On account of dismissal of his appeal for non-prosecution, the petitioner will suffer immensely as the same was pending for the last more than six years and in fact, there was no violation made. He further submitted that even present petition has been filed today through attorney holder. 6. The argument raised is that technicalities should not come in the way for imparting substantial justice. The respondents would not suffer in case the appeal of the petitioner is restored and heard on merits by the Tribunal. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. It is a case in which the petitioner approached the Tribunal impugning Notice dated 14.03.2013 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu under Section 7(3) of the J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988. As is claimed by the petitioner, status quo was directed to be maintained on March 20, 2013. The appeal was pending for a period of more than six years and was dismissed for non prosecution on 12.09.2019. 9. As is claimed by the petitioner, status quo was directed to be maintained on March 20, 2013. The appeal was pending for a period of more than six years and was dismissed for non prosecution on 12.09.2019. 9. Certain facts regarding the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the present petition having been filed through a attorney holder and the claim made by him that he was not keeping good health and remained was mostly out of the town on account of his employment, need to be noticed. 10. As per the material available on record, the property in question was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated August 18, 2009 and on the same very day, an irrevocable general Power of attorney dated May 14, 2009, was executed by him in favour of Ram Saran Saini. Hence, to claim that the power of attorney was executed on account of his illness or that the petitioner used to remain out of town on account of his employment, seems to be an eye wash. 11. A perusal of the contents of the irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the petitioner on the date he purchased the property clearly shows that the authority was given even to sell the property. It looks little strange that on the day some one had purchased the property and executed irrevocable power of attorney to sell the same. Hence, to claim that the power of attorney was given only to look after the same during his absence, is not made out. 12. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that the appeal filed by the petitioner which remained pending before the Tribunal for more than six years with interim stay was dismissed on account of non appearance of the counsel for the petitioner on 12.09.2019 and thereafter for a period of eight months, no steps were taken to file application for restoration thereof. 13. No doubt, the technicalities normally should not come in the way for imparting substantial justice but in the case in hand the facts show that the petitioner was not diligently pursuing his case. It is not always that the fault is to be attributed to the counsel, even the parties whose cases are listed before the Court, need to pursue the same. It is not always that the fault is to be attributed to the counsel, even the parties whose cases are listed before the Court, need to pursue the same. Eight months period is too long to condone the same when the petitioner was also there and he had even executed the power of attorney with an object to take case of property. 14. While concurring with the view expressed by the Tribunal, I do not find that any case is made out for interference in the present writ petition seeking restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.