JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 164 of 1912 to revise an appellate order of the District Judge of North Arcot. The suit was originally posted for final hearing to the 4th December 1912 and was adjourned to the 20th February 1913 by the Court for want of time. On the 20th of February the I leaders for the plaintiff and the defendants were present, but neither of the parties were present. The plaintiff had taken out summonses for his witnesses on the 12th February for the bearing on the 20th, but they did not attend. It appears that one of them was served and the other was not. What happened on that day is stated by the Trial Judge in his original order, which is as follows:

Plaintiffs Pleader stated that his witnesses have not come. He applied for summons late and the summons issued has not yet been returned for want of time. Plaintiff must take the consequence. Plaintiff does not appear. Defendants, too, do not appear. Their Pleaders say that the parties did not go to them. I see no good ground to grant any more adjournment. The suit is, therefore, dismissed Parties to bear their own costs.

2. The plaintiff applied for the restoration of the s