MC 2474/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY By this application, the petitioners have prayed for restoration of the appeal R SA No.91 of 2004, which was dismissed for default on 1.6.2007. I have heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Devi, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The appeal aforenoted was filed by the defendant-appellant against the i mpugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge at Silchar in T itle Appeal No.18 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2000 pass ed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Cachar, Silchar in T.S. No .29 of 1982. The appellant had engaged S.A. Laskar, senior counsel to represent him i n the appeal and accordingly, he was expecting the result and the communication of the engaged Advocates. However, the appellant did not receive any information from the engaged Advocate. It appears that Mr. S.A. Laskar died sometime in the year 2006 but this was not neither intimated to the applicants. During this per iod, the appellants also could not come mainly due to the effect of devastating flood of 2007, which destroyed their movable/immovable property, houses etc. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants though in the month of February, 2009, that their engaged senior counsel has already expired. The appellants ther eafter in the month of March, 2009 sent another Advocate from Silchar to receive the file from the chamber of senior Advocate S.A. Laskar ,but due to the death of senior Advocate, the files could not be located. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2009 the matter was discussed with senior Advocate Mr. B.K. Goswami, w ho assured the applicant to provide every legal assistance. During this period, the appellants were also misguided by the incorrect information given by the Adv ocate’s clerk regarding pendency of appeal. Thereafter, the applicants were eage rly expecting to get information from senior Advocate Mr. B.K. Goswami. Suddenly , the appellants was shocked to find that the attachment of the disputed propert y by the respondents with the help of the police, the appellants immediately rus hed to Guwahati to take advice from senior Advocate Mr. Goswami on 4.8.2010 but came to know that senior Advocate Goswami was no more alive. Subsequently, the a pplicants came to know that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.6 .2007. Soon thereafter, the applicants filed application for restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the same facts, an application for condonation of delay preferred by the applicant was allowed con sidering the aforesaid grounds to be genuine grounds. However, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently resiste d the prayer for restoration and submitted that the restoration petition filed o n behalf of the petitioner deserved to be dismissed, since the grounds stated by the applicant to supplement the prayer for restoration of the appeal are far fr om being true. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that though learned counsel for the applicants Shri S.A. Laskar, senior Advocate expired but there were two othe r counsel, Mr. S.K. Deori and Mr. S. Hussain representing the appellants-applica nts. Therefore, there was no reason for the appellants not to get the informatio n of the death of S.A. Laskar. Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel in reply to the above would submit that though two junior counsels were assisting the senior counsel but they were not a ware of the addresses of the applicants and therefore, they could not intimate t he appellant-applicants. More so, the file of the appellant was misplaced in the chamber of late S.A. Las kar. Mr. Banerjee submitted that the appellant late Ram Nayati Goala is a retire d Teacher was getting pension and had full wall Assam type dwelling house so als o were the other therefore, the appellants cannot be said to be poor litigants. However, poverty or affluency is not the reason why the appeal was dismissed for default. In any view of the matter since the condonation petition has already been grante d accepting the reasons assigned for delay in preferring the connected applicati on for same set of facts. Therefore, in the application for restoration of the a ppeal, there is no reason to discard the same reasons on the same set of facts a nd circumstances. After due appraisal of the facts and circumstances discussed above and after hav ing given thoughtful consideration on the subject, I am of the considered view t hat there are good and sufficient grounds for restoration of the appeal to its o riginal file. Accordingly, R.S.A. No.91 of 2004 is restored to file. The Misc. application stands disposed of.