- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THOUGH it appears that the counsel for the appellant was negligent in not appearing before the Court for arguing the first appeal on four occasions. However, since the counsel (Mr. M.A. Siddiqui) himself has filed affidavit in the present restoration application, praying therein that in the interest of justice, the restoration application may be allowed and order dated 29.03.2011 dismissing the appeal of the appellants for want of prosecution may be recalled, such absence is hereby excused. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and for the reasons stated in the restoration application, the restoration application is allowed, provided the petitioners/appellants shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the learned counsel for the respondents. Subject to pay of cost, the appeal be restored back to its original number and position. Mr. G.R. Singhvi, Learned counsel for the respondents, however, requested that the in one of the petitioners, namely, Ram Prakash has already expired and the respondent No.1, Shyam Lal is also a senior citizen, therefore, the first appeal itself may be heard at an early date. This request has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants. In the result, the restoration application is allowed as indicated herein above subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-. List the first appeal itself for hearing on 13.08.2012.;