This is a petition under Order IX, rule 9, to get restored a petition filed for restoration of the appeal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner filed an appeal against the respondent which was dismissed in default on 19-6-73 He filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 21-6-73 which petition was dismissed in default on 31-7-73. It is alleged by the petitioner that he filed a petition for restoration of the petition on the same day but it was not accepted by the then Presiding Officer for some technical defects. Any how he filed another petition for restoration of the petition dated 21-6-73 on 6-8-73. Prayer in this petition is that application for restoration of the appeal as well as appeal itself be restored and heard on merits.
3. The appeal wa3 dismissed as is alleged by the parties on a statement of the counsel to the effect that he has no instructions.
4. It is strange enough that the appeal was filed by the same appellant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling to the effect if a lawyer states that there are no instructions to him and party is not present for all practical purposes, it is to be assumed that lawyer is note present. It can be taken to be so only when lawyer has been newly engaged. But when appeal was filed by the counsel himself, he was very much in the know of the matter and his statement that he has no instructions means nothing. But refusal to argue or conduct the case and in that case instead of applying for restoration of the principle of article 168 of the Schedule of the Act, for which there is one month's limitation from the date of order. In the instant petition prayer is vague. If the petition for restoration is restored then question is whether the appeal should be restored or not, for which there is not limitation left now.
5. In view of the above discussion, petition for restoration of the appeal merits dismissal. It is hereby dismissed.