K. S. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of 1as No. 2469/94, 2491/94, 2468/94, 2470/94 and 8262/94. ( 2 ) 2469/94 was filed by Brij Mohan jain, intervener under Section 151 CPC alleging that he had filed 1a 24/89 sometime in December 1988. After filling the reply to 24/89 the plaintiff, the Court directed both the intervener/applicant and the plaintiff to file their respective affidavits by way of evidence which were filed. Aforesaid on 14th may, 1993 was adjourned to 10th August 1993 for arguments. However, on 10th august, 1993, the case was simply renotified for 3. 11. 93 by the Court Master. When the case was not found listed on 3. 11. 93, on enquiry from the Dealing Assistant in the registry, it was revealed that the case was postponed to 1. 3. 94. However, on 1. 3. 94 only S. No. 453/67 was shown in the list. It is further alleged that the counsel for the applicant immedlately on the morning of 1. 3. 94 saw the Court file and then he came to know that the aforesaid la was listed for 4. 11. 93 and as none put in appearance on behalf of the applicant, the same was dismissed in default applicant and his counsel always remained under the impression that the aforesaid la was adjourned to 1. 3. 94 for arguments. It is also alleged that even on 4. 11. 93, the case was not shown in the regular list. It might have been shown in the supplementary list which was not circulated to the counsel for the applicant. There was thus sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicant and his counsel on 4. 11. 93. It was prayed that the order dated 4. 11. 93 may be recalled and la 24/89 be listed for arguments. la 2470/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing aforesaid la No. 2469/94. ( 3 ) YET another la 2491/94 was filed by jai Lal Jain on the allegations identical to that taken in la 2469/94 for restoration of la 25/ 89 which too was dismissed in default of appearance on 4. 11. 93. la No. 2468/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing above la No. 2491/94. 11. 93. la No. 2468/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing above la No. 2491/94. ( 4 ) IN the replies filed to the aforesaid IAs, plea taken by the plaintiff is that the case was shown in the supplementary list on 4. 11. 93 also bearing the name of the counsel for the applicant and as none appeared on their behalf, las 24 and 25/89 were dismissed in default of appearance. It is stated that supplementary list was duly circulated to the applicant s counsel. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that las 24/89 and 25/89 were dismissed in default of appearance on 4. 11. 93 and that both the las were not listed in the regular list of that date. Plaintiff alleges that the las were shown in the supplementary list bearing the name of the counsel for the applicants. In las 2469/94 and 2491/94 which were supported by the affidavits, it is denied that any supplementary list was circulated to the applicant s counsel on 4. 11. 93. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the applicants counsel that supplementary list of 4. 11. 93 was not circulated to them. Absence of the applicant s counsel on the aforesaid date, obviously, was because of non-circulation of the supplementary list to them. That being so, applicants have made out sufficient cause not only for condonation of delay in question but also for restoration of las 24/89 and 25/89. ( 6 ) ORDER dated 4. 11. 93 is, therefore, recalled and las 24/89 and 25/89 are restored to their, original number las 2469/94, 2491/ 94, 2468/94 and 2470/94 are disposed off accordingly. ( 7 ) LA No. 8262/94 has been jointly filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 under section 151 CPC for permitting the Receiver to change the tenancies with their consent. I have heard the parties counsel. ( 8 ) SINCE the plaintiff and contesting defendants 1 and 3 agree that the Receiver be permitted to change tenancies at higher rent with, their consent. I have heard the parties counsel. ( 8 ) SINCE the plaintiff and contesting defendants 1 and 3 agree that the Receiver be permitted to change tenancies at higher rent with, their consent. I see absolutely no reason not to clothe the Receiver with the power to change tenancies of the HUF properties in question at higher rents with the consent of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants 1 and 3. Receiver is, accordingly, allowed to change the tenancies at higher rents with the consent of the plaintiff and contesting defendants 1 and 3. However, change in tenancy would be subject to the approval of this Court. la is disposed off accordingly. Application allowed.