JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The applicant/appellant had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage with respondent No. 1 on the ground of cruelty and also for recovery of her ornaments, The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was challenged in First Appeal No. 16 of 1984 in this Court, which was dismissed on 22-7-1991 for want of prosecution, as none appeared for the appellant-applicant. The order-sheet dated 22.7.1991 in First Appeal No. 16 of 1984 reads as under : -- "None for the appellant, Respondent by Shri Ravish Agrawal with Shri Harish Shrivastava, Advocates. Earlier order-sheet dated 26.4.91 shows that no one appeared for the appellant on that day and her Counsel Shri R.K. Pandey reported no instructions. The case was adjourned on 26.4.91 with a direction to re-list this case on 22.7.91 after sending SPC to the appellant Office note shows that SPC was sent to the appellant on 10.5.1991, but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant today. Under these circumstances, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs of this appeal." 2. Thus, it is clear from the order-sheet dated 22.7.1991, quoted above, that the appeal was dismissed in default as none appeared on behalf of the appellant inspite of sending an S.P.C. to the appellant. The present application is filed on 19 8.1991 on the ground the name of the Counsel for the appellant Shri R.N. Singh did not appear in the cause list of 22.7.1991, who was the Counsel for the appellant as he had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant on 5.1.1990. 3. I have perused the record of First Appeal No. 16 of 1984 and I do not find any Vakalatnama filed by Shri R.N. Singh for and on behalf of the appellant Smt. Salma Sitara Begum. As no Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the appellant by Shri R.N. Singh, it cannot be a ground that because the Counsel's name did not appear in the cause list of 22.7.1991 and, therefore, he could not appear in the matter and as a result thereof the appeal was dismissed in default. In the absence of Vakalatnama of the Counsel representing a party, Counsel's name will not appear in the cause list. In the absence of Vakalatnama of the Counsel representing a party, Counsel's name will not appear in the cause list. This being the position, non-appearance of the name of Shri R.N. Singh in the cause list for 22.7.1991 is not a good and sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the matter was called for hearing. Apart from this, the order dated 17.7.1992 in M.C.C. No. 473 of 1991 shows that this matter has been listed time and again for hearing of the application under Order 31, Rule 19, C.P.C. on 28.2.1991, 8.5.92, 10.7.92, 14.7.92, 15.7.92 and 16.7.92 and thereafter on various dates on 24.7.92 and 14.8.92 when it has been specifically recorded that none appears for the applicant and the case is adjourned and today when the case was called none again appeared for the applicant. This indicates that the party is not interested in prosecuting the matter any further. In such a situation this Court is constrained to pass an order of dismissal of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C., which is an application for restoration of the First Appeal No. 16 of 1984.