NARINDER NATH Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 24th Nov., 1976, whereby he refused to restore the appeal dismissed in default on 9th December, 1975. In the impugned order it has been stated that the application for restoration under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not signed by the Appellant. I have seen the application in the Court. It is signed by the counsel for the Appellant, Shri D. L. Nanda and as such there was no necessity of the signature of the Appellant on this application. Moreover, in the reply filed by the Respondent, the only claim made was of costs for the restoration of the appeal.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The application for restoration was made immediately on 11th December, 1975 and it is stated therein that the counsel for the Appellant had gone to Pathankot on the date fixed for some urgent work. The application was supported by an affidavit of his clerk. Under these circumstances, it was a fit case which should have been restored by the learned Additional District Judge.