J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the order in I.A.No.1726/2004 in A.S.No.147/2003. A.S.No.147/2003 was dismissed for default. An application was filed to restore the said appeal to file. On 19.5.2005 there was a representation made by the counsel for the petitioner seeking time. The court refused to grant time and dismissed that application. It is against that decision, the appeal has been preferred. This is opposed by the other side. The learned counsel had relied upon two decisions of this court reported in Muhammed v. Narayani (1991 (2) KLT 287) and Manoharan v. Ezhome Grama Panchayat (2001 (1) KLT 905). In Muhammed's case the subject matter was that a suit was dismissed for default. In stead of filing an application to get it restored, an appeal was filed. The court held, the proper remedy is to file an application under Order IX Rule 9 to get the dismissal set aside. The said decision will have no application to the facts of this case.

The other decision is Manoharan's case. It was a case where a suit was dismissed for default. Then, an application for restoration was filed. It was also dismissed for default. Later an application was filed to restore that I.A