NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS application, purporting to be under Section 151 C. P. C. , has been filed with a request to set-aside or recall the order dated 2-1 1985 and restore the appeal to file in the interest of justice. ( 2 ) ON 2-1-1985, this Court noticed that Respondent No. 1 in the appeal had not been served and the notice issued had been returned unserved by November 1982. No steps have been taken since then by the appellant to get the notice reissued. Then the Court applied the provision under Order 9 Rule 5 C. P. C. and dismissed the appeal against Respondent No. 1, Further, the Court dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of the dismissal of the appeal against Respondent No. 1 because the appeal did not survive against Respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) SRI S. K. . Kulkarni, Advocate has filed his affidavit in support of. A. V. He has stated that though Rule 12 in Chapter XIII of the High Court Rules requires the return of process to be notified as provided in the Rule, the Office of the High Court is not following this Rule in practice and as such the fact that notice on Respondent No. 1 had been returned unserved was not known. ( 4 ) ON 28-8-1985 this Court directed the Office to put up its note in response to the averment made by Sri Kulkarni that the Office is not following Rule 12 in Chapter 13 of the High Court rules. e. . in practice. ( 5 ) THE Office has put up a note that the said Rule is not being followed since it has become impracticable due to the heavy pendency of cases and the present practice is to post the cases directly before the Court when process fee or paper books are required to be furnished by the advocates. ( 6 ) IT is firstly to be seen whether application of the provision in Order 9 Rule 5 C. P. C. for disposal of the appeal against Respondent No. 1 is in accordance with law. This appeal has been admitted. Notices of appeal for hearing of the appeal were issued. Therefore, Order 41 Rule 12 c. P. C. would be applicable. When that is so, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14 C. P. C. would be mandatorily applicable. This appeal has been admitted. Notices of appeal for hearing of the appeal were issued. Therefore, Order 41 Rule 12 c. P. C. would be applicable. When that is so, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14 C. P. C. would be mandatorily applicable. Order 41 Rule 14 C. P. C. mandatorily prescribes that the notice of the day fixed for hearing of the appeal as provided in Rule 12 of Order 41 C. P. C. shall be affixed on the Appellate Court House and so on. Therefore, I am clearly of opinion that the practice prescribed by Rule 12 in Chapter XIII of the High Court Rules cannot be given up when it is mandatorily required by Order 41 Rule 14 C. P. C. that such notice has to be affixed on the appellate Court House. The Office is directed to make arrangements to follow strictly this procedure. ( 7 ) ORDER 9 Rule 5 C. P. C. provides for dismissal of a suit mandatorily when steps are not taken within the period prescribed therein and under the circumstances narrated therein. A provision to a similar affect is found in Order 41 Rule 18 C. P. C. This is not made mandatory. If an appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 18 C. P. C. a right is given to the party aggrieved under Order 41 rule 19 C. P. C. In regard to a dismissal of the suit, the remedy is provided in Order 9 Rule 5 (2) of C. P. C. It, therefore, follows that an appeal which has been already admitted cannot in law be dismissed for non-prosecution by applying the provisions of Order 9 Rule. 5 C. P. C. This position in law makes the view taken by me in the course of the order dated 2-1-1985 untenable. The view now taken is well supported by the decision reported in Babanna Sangappa and ors. v. Parava ningbasappa and ors. , AIR 1927 Bombay 68 ( 8 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons,. A. V. is allowed as per the provisions in Order 41 Rule 19 c. P. C. and not in exercise of the powers under Section 151 of C. P. C. The order dated 2-1-1985 is recalled. The appeal is restored to file.