JUDGMENT:- These two civil miscellaneous appeals are against the dismissal of two applications to have two appeals restored. A. S. Nos. 37 of 1971 and 56 of 1971 are connected appeals as they arise out of a common judgment. In A. S. 56 of 1971 there was deficiency of court-fee and the court ordered the same to be paid by 17-2-1973. To that date A. S.37 of 1971 also stood posted as it is connected with the other appeal. The appellants in both the appeals did not appear on 17-2-1973 and the deficit court-fee had not been paid. Therefore, the counsel reported 'no instructions' and both the appeals came to be dismissed on that day (17-2-1973). Later, the two applications were filed for having the appeals restored on the ground that the first appellant in A.S. 56 of 1971, who was in charge of the matter, had been laid up and that therefore, proper instructions could not be given to the counsel regarding the payment of court-fee. This case was not accepted by the court below and the applications have been dismissed. These appeals are filed challenging the abovesaid orders of dismissal.

2. Mr. O.V. Baluswami, the learned counsel for the first respondent in both these appeals who i