Srinivasan, J.

1. The appeal was in the list for final hearing on 21.4.1988 and learned Counsel who was on record at that time reported no instructions; the party's name was called and the appellant did not appear. Hence, the appeal was dismissed on that date.

2. C.M.P. No. 9919 of 1990 has been filed for set. ting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.4.1988. It is stated in the affidavit that at the time when the appeal was filed M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan had filed vakalath for the appellant and on 12.1.1987 they had given consent for change of vakalath. It is further stated that on 19.1.1987 a vakalath was filed by M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss, Advocates, Madras. But, admittedly no application was filed for revocation of vakalath given already to M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan. Under Order 2, Rule 4(3) of the Appellate Side Rules, the Registrar is empowered to order change of practitioners on application made on stamped petition. Though no petition was filed by the appellant or his new counsel M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss the Registry simply accepted the vakalath filed by M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss and kept it along with records withou