MC 1679/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr D Das, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. It is submitted by Medhi on instructions that the opposite party No.2 me anwhile has been wound up. He further submits that on the date on which the acco mpanying RSA No. 87/2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution it was fixed for hear ing. This Court had decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal with only opposite party No.1 on record for all intents and purposes. Admittedly, on the d ate of dismissal of the appeal, the interim order dated 21.11.2008 passed in MC 2077/2008 was in operation. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the averments made in the application supported by an affidavit, this Court is of the view that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the lapse resulti ng in the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. In the above view of the matter, both RSA No. 87/2008 and MC No. 2077/20 08 are hereby restored to file by recalling the order dated 27.5.2011 passed in both the proceedings. Though the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has prayed that a direction may be issued imposing cost on the applicant, having regard to the f act that personal difficulty of the learned conducting counsel has been cited, t his Court is not inclined to accede to the said prayer. Misc. case stands allowed in the above terms.