( 1 ) DELAY, it is said, defeats justice. Surely. I have noticed something else too. It sometimes wears down even the Advocates with the result that when exposition is expected at some length, the arguments end in a whimper, I could easily discern such weariness in this appeal of 1975. The fire was amiss and so also a lawyers s most effective weapon, the precedent.

( 2 ) THE question raised is as old as the hills. However, let us first hurry through the facts. The suit was dismissed in default. The very next day of that order an application was moved for its restoration and the plea taken was that whereas the counsel was busy in the High Court the trial Judge refused to adjourn the case on the request of his clerk on the ground that he had no authority to appear. The trial Judge recorded the evidence and held that the clerk had not put in appearance and as far as the counsel was concerned his absence constituted no "sufficient cause". The application thus invited the order of dismissal. This was on August 20, 1974. The present appeal against that order was admitted on February 4, 1975.

( 3 ) DOES the absence of a lawyer on the ground that he had some professional wor