Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first appellate Court dated 5th Oct., 1995 by which the petitioner’s application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed by the first appellate Court and consequently, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act disclosing the sufficient reason for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It is submitted that even if the facts as mentioned in the order of the first appellate Court are accepted then admittedly, the petitioner’s advocate did not appear in the trial Court after the transfer of the civil original suit and his brief holder appeared before the trial Court. Neither his advocate nor junior advocate informed the petitioner about the transfer of the case and because of that reason only, the petitioner could not appear before the Court where the suit was transferred. It is also submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument, there was some negligence on the pa