JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against an order, whereby the application of the petitioner for deposit of cost ; which ought to have been deposited within 15 days, failing which the order setting aside the ex parte order was to revive; has been filed after a lapse of six months and only explanation that has been given was that there was Advocates' strike. Advocates' strike cannot be a ground for the condonation of delay because even if the Advocates were on strike, the petitioner could have deposited the money in person.
3. In this view of the matter, no interference is required with the orders impugned in the present writ petition in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.