(1) SPECIAL leave granted. Arguments heard. (2) IT appears from the affidavit sworn by Sri Samarendra Nath Banerjee, who was the counsel appearing for the appellant, that he had made an endorsement No objection on the vakalatnama filed by Sri Asit Kumar Bhattacharya, the counsel engaged by the appellant to move an application under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We are afraid, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 1063 of 1970 for default under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code on the ground of alleged impropriety involved in another counsel filing an application for recalling the earlier order when the appellant was already represented by a counsel. We have no doubt that Sri Bhattacharya was justified in moving the application for restoration particularly when Sri Banerjee had recorded that he had no objection to his appearance. We find that there is no impropriety in a counsel moving an application for restoration and it cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that another counsel was appearing in the appeal. (3) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The older passed by the High court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code for restoration of the appeal is set aside and the High court is directed to deal with the application on merits after hearing the parties. No costs.