Short Note : 1. An appeal was pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge On 26th August 1975 when this appeal was listed for hearing neither the appellant-nor their counsel was present and the appeal was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of this appeal was filed. It was alleged in this application that on the date when the case was called for hearing, Shri N. K. Sharma, Advocate who appeared for the appellants was in detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and as the appellants were not knowing the date of Internal Security Act and as the appellants were not knowing the date of the hearing of the appeal they did not remain present nor could make arrangement for any body's presence. The learned trial Court after inquiry came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient cause and rejected the application for restoration of the appeal. Held: The only ground urged for restoration of the appeal was that the appellant was not knowing the date of hearing and therefore did not bother to attend and on the date their counsel could not remain present as he was arrested and detained under the M.I.S. Act. Out of these two facts alleged, the one that the appellant did not know the date of hearing has been established to be wrong as the appellant who was examined herself admitted in cross-examination that the date of hearing of the appeal was very well known. The learned Court below while appreciating the statement made by the appellant that she did not know of the arrest of her lawyer considered the circumstances that admittedly Shri N. K. Sharma was arrested on 2-8-75, that the appellants and Shri Sharma are residents of the same town which is a small town and that Shri N. K. Sharma is a well known lawyer of Rajgarh and this fact is admitted by the appellant herself in cross-examination. On these facts the learned Court below felt that ordinarily when such an eminent lawyer of a small place is arrested everyone is expected to know about it and therefore presumed that the appellant must have known about the arrest. This could not be said to be basing the judgment on surmises. These are the circumstances considered by the learned Court below to appreciate the evidence of the appellant who stepped in the witness box. This could not be said to be basing the judgment on surmises. These are the circumstances considered by the learned Court below to appreciate the evidence of the appellant who stepped in the witness box. Looking to the circumstances it could not be said that the view taken by the learned Court below is such which reasonably could not have been taken. Appeal dismissed.