- (1.) Heard Sri Munawar Sultan learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri P.V. Chaudhary for the opposite parties.
(2.) This second appeal was dismissed in default on 9.10.2009. The Appellant moved an application for its restoration on 13.1.2010 with an application for condo nation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He has explained the reasons for moving the application with delay. Objection was invited from Sri P.V. Chaudhary on application for condo nation of delay. Sri Chaudhary has raised objection that the delay should not be condoned.
(3.) Sri P.V. Chaudhary has raised another legal objection that in second appeal application for restoration can only be moved under Order 41 Rule 19. It reads as follows: 19. Re-admission of appeal dismissed for default.--Where an appeal is dismissed under Rule 11, Sub-rule (2) or Rule 17, the Appellant may apply to the Appellate Court for the re-admission of the appeal; and, where it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing or from depositing the sum so required, the Court shall re-admit the appeal on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit.;