Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Najmul Hoda for the appellant, and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.5.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishenganj, in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1998, whereby the present appellants application under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. The respondent herein had preferred the suit for declaration that the relevant entry in the survey records in favour of the original defendant is incorrect and, therefore, it was prayed that the same may be corrected. The present appellant is the heir of the original defendant having been substituted after his death. The suit was decreed. The defendant preferred the appeal which was admitted and was pending for hearing. It was dismissed in default by order dated 1.4.98 in terms of Order 41, Rule 19, CPC. Thereafter the present appellant preferred the aforesaid application under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned court of appeal below. The plaintiff (the respondent herein) was noticed. The plaintiff did not appear in spite of service of notice. The defendant-appellant led evidence in support of her case on consideration of which the same has been rejected. 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dismissal was on account of non-appearance of the counsel for the defendant-appellant and, therefore, the party should not be made to suffer. He relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 538 (Jainath Choudhary V/s. Ram Tapesa Bharti). 3. Learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) supports the impugned order. 4. By order dated 21.8.2002 passed on this appeal notice was issued to the plaintiff, and the lower court records were called for which have since been received in this Court. On a perusal of the impugned order, original records and consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the learned court to appeal below was not convicted of the cause of the defendant-appellant which is manifest from paragraph-5 of the impugned order relevant portion of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : "....... In this light the circumstances and facts in the instant case is quite reverse and unfavourable on the applicant because it has not come on the record that in fact, the learned counsel due his engagement some where could not attend the court nor could argue the appeal. Therefore, the misc. application having no merit stands dismissed on contest." 5. I entirely agree with the findings of the learned court of appeal below. Once it is found that the non-appearance of the party or his counsel was not bona fide, a case for setting aside the order of dismissal for non-appearance cannot be allowed. It has further been found in the impugned order that non-appearance of the learned counsel was not bonafide, a finding with which I agree. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and is accordingly, dismissed.