Short Note Appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 19, CPC for restoration of Civil Appeal No. 24-A/1990 has been dismissed by the impugned-order dated 31.8.1998 in MJC No. 2/1994 by II Additional District Judge, Shahdol. In this appeal, the said order is under challenge. The appellant had preferred the said Civil Appeal No. 24-A/1990 before the lower appellate Court. It was fixed for final hearing on 5.5.1994. On that date, the counsel for the appellant pleaded no instructions. Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The appellant filed an application for restoration under Order 41 Rule 19, CPC. It was stated therein that she could not appear on account of ailment of her husband, who was asthmatic and because of preoccupation with her family work. No medical certificate or other documentary evidence was produced by her to indicate that the ailment of appellant's husband was of serious nature requiring her constant attendance with him. In fact, it appears that she had stated in the application that her husband was suffering from asthma. If that be so, in the absence of any emergency regarding the ailment of her husband, the said chronic ailment of asthma could not obviously constitute a ground for non-appearance. In view of above, the appellant could remain present at the time of hearing, and in any case she could have intimated her counsel regarding her inability. She has not done so. The second ground of preoccupation with family work is in very vague and general terms. No particulars have been given as to what was the work in which she was so preoccupied and could not attend the hearing of the case or had no time even to intimate her counsel. The grounds as above appear to be vague and do not constitute sufficient cause for absence of the appellant. The same have not been duly substantiated. It appears that the appellant had been negligent and had not taken care to prosecute the appeal sincerely and diligently. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in holding that no sufficient cause for the appellant's absence, on the date of hearing has been shown. Her application for restoration was, therefore, rightly rejected. No interference in the impugned-order is called for. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.