A. K. YOG, J. Heard Ms. Rama Goel, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Caveator- Applicant Ravi Kant Srivastava. 2. The present petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21-9-2001 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) by means of which tenants appeal under Section 22 of the Act dismissed in default. Petitioner filed a restoration application on the same day i. e. , on 21-9-2001 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. 3. The contesting landlord-respondent filed objection (Annexure- 10 to the writ petition ). 4. The appellate Court Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the restoration application videits judgment and order dated 19-12-2001 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition ). It is not disputed that restoration application was filed on the same day. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of the impugned order itself shows that the Court below was unduly swayed by the certain circumstances in the past and, according to the petitioner, Appellate Court was not correct in its approach inasmuch as restoration application in hand ought to have decided on merit without taking into account the extraneous consideration like the conduct of the petitioner in the past on some date. 6. The ground taken in the restoration application is that petitioner had gone to call his Counsel and before he and his Counsel could come back the case was dismissed in default. 7. The reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge for adverse order like present one are passed only when the client or his Counsel are not at all present till 12. 30 p. m. The case is to be taken between 10. 00 a. m. till rising of the Court at the end of the day. The Court cannot expect client and his Counsel to move precision on the basis of minute and second. 8. In view of the above and in the interest of justice the expediency demand that the impugned order dated 19-12-2001 be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel for the contesting landlord-respondent submitted that impugned order shows that petitioner-tenant appears to be interested in delaying proceedings. 10. In the result, the impugned order dated 19-12-2001 is set aside and restoration application of the petitioner is allowed. 9. Learned Counsel for the contesting landlord-respondent submitted that impugned order shows that petitioner-tenant appears to be interested in delaying proceedings. 10. In the result, the impugned order dated 19-12-2001 is set aside and restoration application of the petitioner is allowed. Appeal stands restored to its original number before the Court of District Judge, Varanasi subject, however, on payment of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the contesting landlord- respondent before the next date of appeal being fixed before concerned Court below. Both the Counsel for the parties shall give an undertaking that no adjournment shall be taken before the Court below and Court below shall endeavour to decide the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 11. Petition stands allowed subject to the observation made above. Petition allowed. .