3.The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that without assigning any reason, the learned Judge has directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for each of the applications totalling Rs.5,00,000/- towards costs for condoning the delay in filing the restoration applications, which is excessive and exorbitant. The learned counsel further submitted that after the dismissal of the applications for non-prosecution on 24.01.2017, the restoration applications were immediately filed by the appellant, but the same were returned by the Registry at the SR stage for clarification and the applications were represented on 12.12.2018. Thereafter, the appellant believed that his previous counsel was following the cases. However, during November, 2021, his previous counsel without informing the stage of the case, gave change of vakalat. Pursuant to the same, the appellant engaged the present counsel and got the applications numbered for hearing. Thus, the delay occurred in filing the restoration applications is neither wilful nor wanton. Though the learned Judge was inclined to condone the delay, in the interest of justice and provide an opportunity to the appellant to defend the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6
