Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) The cause shown is sufficient. The delay condonation application and the restoration application for recalling the order dated 27.2.2003 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution is recalled. The second appeal is restored to its original number and has been heard.
(2.) This defendant second appeal arises out of a O.S. No. 175 of 1972, Abdul Hai v. Vakil Ahmad , for possession over the premises scheduled on the foot of the plaint and recovery of Rs. 720/- as damages. The Suit was dismissed on 4.9.1974, with the findings that the plaintiff is not the owner of the shop in dispute and that he did not let out the shop as alleged. The Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1975 was allowed on 25.10.1976 and while setting aside the decree under appeal, the suit was decreed for recovery of possession of the shop, arrears of rent Rs. 720/-, and for pendentelite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 20/- month.
(3.) I have heard Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari learned counsel for the appellant, but did not have the benefit of the arguments for the respondent as no one appeared for them.;