JUDGMENT Sir George Knox, Banerji and Karamat Husain, JJ 1. The suit in which the order was passed from which this appeal has been filed was a suit for recovery of property of considerable value. The number of persons arrayed as defendants was originally 245. Upon the institution of the suit the court decided to fix a date for settlement of issues. Owing to the great number of defendants the date originally fixed for settlement of issues expired before the parties had been served. While the case was thus pending, one of the defendants, Dularia, died. In lieu of the date originally fixed for the settlement of issues the court fixed the 25th of July, 1907, for the same purpose. In consequence of the death of Dularia an application was made to bring her heirs on the record. It so happened that one of the heirs was a minor, and it was necessary to appoint a guardian for the suit. The plaintiff, thereupon, suggested that the minor's brother, a co-defendant in the suit, should be made guardian. Upon notice going to the said brother, he appears to have noted on the summons that he did not want to act as guardian. This fact of his refusing to be guardian was brought before the court on the 12th of July, 1907, and the court then ordered the plaintiff to suggest some one else as a guardian. It granted three days for the plaintiff to decide what course to take and directed the case to be put up for this purpose on the 16th of July, 1907. On the 16th of July, 1907, neither the plaintiff nor any pleader on his behalf appeared in court, and the learned Judge, apparently overlooking the fact that the only matter which he had before him on that day was the appointment of a guardian, treated the absence of the plaintiff as absence on the day fixed for the case, and although that day had not arrived, the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on behalf of the plaintiff. The same day the plaintiff's pleader filed an application asking that the order passed might be re-considered and the case readmitted under its original number. This application, was supported by two so-called affidavits. Neither of the affidavits deserves the name of an affidavit. They are mere pieces of waste paper. The same day the plaintiff's pleader filed an application asking that the order passed might be re-considered and the case readmitted under its original number. This application, was supported by two so-called affidavits. Neither of the affidavits deserves the name of an affidavit. They are mere pieces of waste paper. Be that as it may, the court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant had failed to show any sufficient cause for his nonappearance. From this order the present a real has been filed. While it is true that neither the application nor the affidavits disclosed any sufficient cause, sufficient cause was amply manifest on the face of the record, and the court should have taken note of it. The date on which the plaintiff did not appear was not the date for the hearing of the suit itself, and the farthest the court could go was to decide the application which had been put before the court and for the hearing of which the 10th of July, 1907, had been fixed. It is contended that the application was not an application u/s 103 of Act XIV of 1882. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge answers that contention fully. He evidently considered it, as his judgment shows, a case to be dealt with u/s 102. We allow the appeal set aside the order passed on the 6th of February, 1909; allow the application for restoration of the case, and direct the court below to restore the suit under its Original number and proceed to hear it according to law. The costs will abide the event.