Mudholkar, J—This is an application by some of the Defendants for the revision of an order restoring a suit dismissed in default.

2. The suit in question was instituted by non-applicant 1 against the applicants and non-applicants 2 to 5 for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house. It was fixed for evidence on 26th October 1948 on which date non applicant 1 was examined as a witness and the case adjourned to the next day. On that day. non-applicant 1 was absent when the case was first called bat she appeared in person when it was called again at 11.40 A. M. She then made an application for adjournment of the case. In the meanwhile, her Counsel Shri K.Y. Deshpande also came to the Court and stated that he had no instructions and that he was not appearing for the non-applicant 1 any more. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application for adjournment mainly on the ground that no adjournment can be granted merely because non-applicant 1 wants to engage another Counsel in the middle of a trial. Non-applicant 1 then went out of the Court room to fetch her Counsel. The learned Civil Judge waited for her till 12.35 P.M. and as she did not return by then, he dism