SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners appeal from the judgment and decree of a civil Court was dismissed in default on 9-9-1985. They filed an application on 30-9-1985 for the restoration of the appeal. One of them, namely, petitioner No. l, appeared in support of the application and alleged that she was present in Court when the appeal was adjourned to 9-9-1975. Being an old woman she was short of hearing. She took the impression that the appeal was to come up on 30-9-1985 instead of 9-9-1985. The learned Additional District Judge rejected this explanation and dismissed the application for restoration. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Additional District Judge.
The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There are concurrent findings of the high Court and the Additional District Judge that the petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause for the restoration of the appeal. We are not persuaded that the view taken by them suffers from any infirmity. We would accordingly dismiss this petition.