QAMAR HASAN, J. : -

We have before us C. M. A. No. 61 and C. R. P. No. 97 both of 1955. The former is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-1-1954 of the District Judge, Secunderabad in M. P. No. 125 of 1954 for restoration of O. S. No. 4 of 1954, which was dismissed for default on 1-12-1954. The latter challenges the propriety of the order of dismissal of the suit for default itself.

2. The facts are that the defendant filed his written statement on 23-11-1954 along with four miscellaneous applications. The advocate for the plaintiff requested for time and the case was adjourned to 1-12-1954, for filing counters. When the case was called on, it was found that neither the plaintiff nor his advocate was present. The learned District Judge, acting under Rule 8 of Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, dismissed the suit for default.

3. Mr. Janardhan Rao arrived in Court premises at 10-50 a.m., on the same date and purporting to act as junior of Mr. Venkateswarlu, who had filed his vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff, presented an application for restoration of the suit. To explain the cause of delay, he filed his own affidavit. Believing the affirmations made in the affidavi