SANATANNESSA BEWA Vs. HAIPATULLAH SARKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. Leave to appeal was obtained from order dated 24.10.1983 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court Division, Rangpur Bench in Second Appeal No. 268 of 1978 dismissing an application for restoration of the said appeal which was dismissed for default on 19.6.83.

(2.) The grievance made by the appellants is that the learned Judge instead of considering whether the learned Advocate for the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was taken up for hearing dismissed the petition for restoration holding that there was no merit in the appeal.

(3.) Upon a scrutiny of the relevant orders, it appears that the grievance is not entirely justified. It is true that on both occasions i.e. while dismissing the appeal for default and also while rejecting the application for restoration the merit of the appeal was taken into consideration by the learned Judge. But then it has also been found that 'there was no satisfactory legal plea on the part of the plaintiff-appellant which prevented him from attending court when the case was fixed for hearing'.