ORDER Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.--1. The petitioner, in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or India, seeks a direction for quashing the order of respondent No.1 of dismissing his appeal by order as contained in Annexure A in default of appearance of the appellant or his counsel, on 5.7.83 and also the order Annexure B-1, rejecting the application filed on the same day for the restoration of appeal. 2. The petitioner is the State undertaking, dealing in transport of passengers. It had filed an appeal engaging Shri D.B. Nigudkar, as counsel. Shri Nigudkar had left for abroad and had instructed Shri Arvind Dudawat, Advocate to appear in the appeal. The respondent No. 1 took up the appeal in the early hour on 5.7.83 and dismissed the appeal as none had appeared for the appellant. The counsel for the respondent No.2 was present in Court. 3. It is contended that at 11.30 A.M. Shri Arvind Dudawat, Advocate had appeared before respondent No. 1 and on being informed that the appeal was dismissed in default of appearance, he had filed the application for its restoration soon thereafter. The application was taken up for consideration on the next day i.e. 6.7.83 and the order was reserved after hearing the appellant's counsel. Respondent No.1 passed the order on the next day i.e. 7.7.83 and dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 acted illegally, unfairly and unreasonably in dismissing the appeal, in the early hour of the day. 5. It is further contended that when the counsel who was instructed by the petitioner's standing counsel, Shri D.B. Nigudkar, before going abroad, to look after his cases, had appeared before respondent No.1 and had filed an application on the same day for the restoration or appeal, the respondent No.1 acted most arbitrarily and illegally in refusing to restore the appeal and in rejecting the application. 6. Under the settled view or this Court on the point, the approach adopted by respondent No. 1 is wholly illegal and against the mandate issued by this Court from time to time. 7. In fact, in such matters where the appellant is a Body Corporate and has a standing counsel, none is supposed lo generally appear in each case on the fixed dates. 7. In fact, in such matters where the appellant is a Body Corporate and has a standing counsel, none is supposed lo generally appear in each case on the fixed dates. When the matters are entrusted to the counsel, it becomes his duty to properly appear and plead the cases so entrusted. The petitioner's standing counsel Shri Nigudkar was admittedly out or the country at the relevant time. Soon after the dismissal or the appeal when Advocate Shri Arvind Dudawat had appeared in the appeal and had filed the application seeking the restoration, there could be no valid ground for rejecting the application and refusing to restore the appeal. The intention or the party plays an important role in such matters. The respondent No.1, while dismissing the application for restoration, has not stated that the application was malafide or that the action or the appellant's counsel in not appearing at the call of the case was not bonafide. It is the settled view of this Court that when an application is filed in the case and particularly, on the date of its dismissal, the case must restored. Please see Ramrus and others v. Narayan and others (1975 RN 34), Shankerlal Ratanlal (firm) v. Mangilal [1978 (II) MPWN 46], Laxmi Kumar Baori v. Amar Narayan (1979 (I) MPWN 191) and Kailash Chandra v. Vidyatma Joshi (1983 MPWN 198). 8. In the interest of justice, ordinarily, a Court should not dismiss a case in default of appearance in the early part of the day. Even if a case is dismissed in default in the early part, it should ordinarily be restored when application is made particularly, on the same day and when no malafides are attributed to the applicant for his absence at the time when the case was called for hearing. 9. The Apex Court in Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another ( AIR 1981 SC 1400 ) extended the provision further and held that even if an Advocate deliberately absented in appearance whether the party should be penalized for it? It is was that :- "The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative." 10. For the foregoing reasons the petition deserves to be allowed. It is was that :- "The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative." 10. For the foregoing reasons the petition deserves to be allowed. The orders passed by respondent No.1 of dismissing the appeal on 5.7.83, Annexure-A and rejecting the application for restoration, on 7.7.83, Annexure B-2 are quashed. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 shall stand restored to its file and the respondent No. 1 shall decide the appeal on in merits in accordance with law, after noticing the respondent No.2. 11. In the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to the costs.