Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) NOTICES for final disposal was issued on 18th March, 1996 and as per the office report dated 23rd March, 2001 service stands complete. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order. ( 3 ) ON 28th August, 1986 the suit was decreed by the trial court and appellant preferred the appeal, which was pending for filing application for bringing legal representatives/successors in interest of respondent No. 2 Nathu Ji and on that date, on 18th April, 1983 nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and appeal was dismissed by the First appellate Court. ( 4 ) ANapplication under Order 41 Rule 19 was submitted for re-admission of the appeal on 4th May, 1993 alongwith affidavit of the counsel appearing for the appellant in which it is stated that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of counsel for the appellant. It is also stated in the application that one appellant Laxmi Kishan was prosecuting the case and he suddenly fallen ill and, therefore, he could not attend the court. The First appellate Court dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC on the ground that cause shown by the appellant-applicants is not sufficient cause in view of the various decisions referred in the impugned order and on the ground that affidavit of Laxmi Kishan was pot submitted in support of application and no medical certificate was produced. Therefore, on these two grounds the application was dismissed. The appellant preferred appeal against the above order of the First Appellate Court dated 23rd Sept. , 1995. ( 5 ) NOBODY appeared to oppose the appeal. It is clear from the order itself that the date was fixed for submitting an application for bringing legal representatives of respondent No. 2, on that day learned counsel for the appellant could not appear due to the call of the strike by the Advocate Association and it is also submitted that the appellant Laxmi kishan, who was conducting the appeal could not appear because he fallen ill suddenly. The fact shows that date fixed was for filing application for bringing legal representatives of respondent No. 2 Nathu and if there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance of the parties then the court could have proceeded to fix date for hearing of the appeal and effect of non-submitting application for bringing legal representatives could have been seen at the time of the hearing of the appeal but on that date the First Appellate Court should not have dismissed the appeal itself. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23rd Sept. , 1995 deserves to be set aside. The appeal of the appellant no. CAD 144/92-Laxmi Kishan v. Jai Deu is restored to its original number. The appellant is directed to appear before the First Appellate court on 17th Sept. , 2001 and the First Appellate Court will proceed in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. Appeal allowed.