JUDGMENT The order of the Court was made by K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The petitioner in T.R.C. No. 169 of 1989 is the petitioner in both the civil miscellaneous petitions. The respondent is the Revenue. The tax revision case is filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated January 11, 1989, cancelling the assessee's sales tax registrations under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with effect from July 1, 1987. The case stood posted to January 11, 1990. It was adjourned for a week. Again, it came up on January 24, 1990. Counsel for the assessee petitioner reported no instruction. So the Bench ordered the case to be posted on the next day showing the name of the party in the cause title. When the revision came up for hearing on the next day (January 25, 1990) as ordered neither the petitioner nor any other person authorised on his behalf appeared before court. The tax revision case was dismissed for default on January 25, 1990. 2. C.M.P. No. 1611 of 1990 dated April 9, 1990, is filed to set aside the order dismissing the revision for default and to restore the case to file. Admittedly there is delay in filing the application. So the petitioner has filed C.M.P. No. 1612 of 1990 dated April 9, 1990 to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the petition for restoration. 3. We heard counsel for the petitioner. In the petition filed to condone the delay, apart from vague averments, to the effect that the petitioner knew the dismissal for default only on April 4, 1990, no convincing or cogent reason is given to condone the delay. It is stated that the petitioner expressed his desire to engage another counsel. But it is conceded that the vakkalath of the new counsel was not filed. The petitioner was aware of the pendency of the case and its posting, which is evident from the affidavit filed in this Court dated April 9, 1990. In so far as the petitioner has failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance when the case came up for hearing on January 25, 1990, there is no merit in the petition to condone the delay caused in filing the restoration application. We reject C.M.P. No. 1612 of 1990. 4. In so far as the petitioner has failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance when the case came up for hearing on January 25, 1990, there is no merit in the petition to condone the delay caused in filing the restoration application. We reject C.M.P. No. 1612 of 1990. 4. We may also add that the grounds stated in the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 1611 of 1990 the petition to restore the revision to file - are neither clear nor definite. The averments are vague. There is not even a statement from the counsel who was originally engaged that the petitioner, desired to engage another counsel. We are unable to place any reliance on the vague averments contained in the affidavits dated April 9, 1990. C.M.P. No. 1611 of 1990 is also without substance. We dismiss C.M.P. Nos. 1611 and 1612 of 1990. ORDER We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted. The Tax Revision Case No. 169 of 1989 before the High Court of Kerala came to be dismissed for default on January 25, 1990. On the previous day when the case was listed the learned counsel for the appellant reported "no instructions" and the matter was adjourned to the next day, i.e., January 25, 1990, directing that the appellant's name be shown in the cause list as appearing in person. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that when a learned counsel appearing for a party is permitted to retire from a case, the court should ensure that the counsel had given intimation of his intention so to do, so that the party is enabled to make alternative arrangement. In the present case, it is submitted, the learned counsel had not done so and no papers were filed by the counsel in the court indicating that he had issued any such advance notice to the client of his intention to retire from the case. In the present case, it is submitted, the learned counsel had not done so and no papers were filed by the counsel in the court indicating that he had issued any such advance notice to the client of his intention to retire from the case. While we do not propose to express any opinion as to the circumstances in which the court should ensure intimation by the counsel to the client of his intention to retire from the case, however, it appears that at the stage of proceedings where the personal presence of the party in court is not normally expected - such as the stage of final arguments in a suit or the arguments in appeal - other than the stage, say, of evidence where the party's presence is normally expected, it might, perhaps, be proper to ensure that the learned counsel who seeks to retire from the case at the very last moment had earlier given notice to the client. It is on this ground that the appellant later moved the court for recalling the earlier order of dismissal and to afford to it an opportunity of being heard. This prayer was rejected by the High Court by its order dated June 1, 1990. The appellant has come up here against that order. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant has one more opportunity of being heard. We did not understand Sri Firoz, learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala, to oppose this prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated June 1, 1990 of the High Court is set aside and T.R.C. No. 169 of 1989 is remitted to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.