PANNALAL Vs. NANDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a restoration application under O. 41, R. 19 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Pannalal's appeal in case No. 42 of 1951 was listed for hearing on the 31st March, 1954, and it was dismissed for default on that date. THE appellant then moved an application for restoration and it was stated on his behalf than he had engaged Mr. D. M. Bhandari to argue his appeal and that on previous occasions his appeal had been listed for hearing a number of times but for some reason or the other it could not be heard and disposed of THE appellant appeared personally to look after his case on former occasions but subsequently Mr. Phulchand, clerk of Mr. Bhandari told him that he need not come to the court as the case would be looked after by the learned counsel THE appellant states in his affidavit that for this reason he did not appear in court on the 31st of March, 1954, and relied on the assurance given to him by Mr. Phul Chand. It is further stated in the application that Mr Bhandari was busy in another case in court No 1 and by the time he came this case was dismissed for default. Mr Bhandari's explanation is that as the list of 29th of March 1934, had not been exhausted and was being taken up on the 31st of March, 1954, he thought that his case would not come up for hearing so soon. But to his surprise the case was taken up much before what he expected and it was dismissed. For these reasons it is prayed that this appeal be ordered to be restored to its original number.