JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This appeal is directed against an order passed by an appellate court dismissing the application of the appellant purporting to be under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It appears that a Misc. Appeal No. 224 of 1984 preferred by the appellant was posted for hearing before the learned XII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur on 25.8.84. It is also apparent that this appeal was dismissed in default at 3.15. P.M. on that date. On the next date, an application containing the prayer that the order dismissing the appeal in default may be recalled was made on behalf of the appellant. 3. It was averred in the affidavit filed in support of that application that between 1.45 and 3.15 P.M. it was raining very heavily on 25.8.84. This fact has been noted by the learned Judge in his order. Curiously enough, the learned Judge has not dealt with this aspect of the matter at all. On the other hand, he has taken great pains to point out that the appeal was called out in the earlier part of the day, the pairokar appeared and prayed that he may be permitted to bring counsel. The case was again called out, the pairokar repeated his performance and lastly the Court passed an order that the case will be taken up for hearing immediately after lunch. 4. In the circumstances mentioned above, I have to proceed on the assumption that it was, in fact, raining very heavily between 1.45 to 3.45 P.M. on 25.8.84. It is obvious that heavy rains prevented the counsel and the pairokdar from attending the Court at 3.15 P.M. when the case was called out. In my opinion, this was sufficient to entitle the appellant to invoke the provisions of Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Judge committed a grave error in dismissing the application without considering this aspect of the matter. This order, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand and it has got to be set aside. 5. Normally, before allowing this appeal this Court should have directed that notices should be served upon the respondents no. 1 to 6. This order, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand and it has got to be set aside. 5. Normally, before allowing this appeal this Court should have directed that notices should be served upon the respondents no. 1 to 6. However, in the impugned order of the appellate court the following is observed :- "The opposite parties filed objections and asserted that the appellant deliberately absented and allowed the appeal to be dismissed in default and he has not made out any cause much less sufficient cause for his absence on 25.8.84. But to avoid any delay in the execution proceedings, the respondents have no objections except costs to the restoration of the appeal. Subsequently the respondents moved 6-C saying that they do not press their objections except for Costs." 6. In these circumstances, I think, no useful purpose will be served in directing that notices should be served upon the said respondents. Moreover, if the appeal is admitted and stay order is granted by me, the respondents will suffer greater hardship as the execution proceedings are bound to be held up. Having regard to the pressure of work in this Court there is hardly any possibility of this appeal being disposed of finally in the near future. 7. This appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the XII Addl. District Judge dated 5.9.84 is set aside. Let the Misc. Appeal No. 224 of 1984 be restored to its original number. The Learned Judge shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant states that during the pendency of the appeal, there was a stay order. If that was so, the stay order shall continue to operate during the pendency of the appeal. 9. A copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel for the Appellant on payment of usual charges.