Judgment JASBIR SINGH, J. 1. Despite service, none has put appearance on behalf of the respondents. Record shows that on 24.12.1997 none appeared on behalf of the appellant and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in default. 2. Immediately, thereafter the appellant moved an application for restoration of the appeal, wherein it was stated that on the date referred to above, his counsel met with an accident and accordingly, he could not appear before the Court and, as such, no fault can be found with the appellant and a prayer was made that the appeal be heard on merits. That application was also dismissed vide order dated 4.9.2000. 3. Record reveals that the appellate Court below has taken about two years in deciding application for restoration of the appeal, during this period, that appeal could have been restored and decided on merits. In such like matters, when application is filed within the period of limitation, Courts are supposed not to waste time and may give opportunity to the parties concerned to argue the matter on merits. 4. None has put up appearance on behalf of the respondents to oppose this appeal. 5. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal Lal and another, 1981 (2) SCC 788, this Court feels that the litigant cannot be penalized for any fault committed by his counsel. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Order dated 4.9.2000 and also order dated 24.12.1997 are set aside. Appellate Court below is directed to restore the appeal of the appellant to its original number. Appellant is directed to appear before the Court below on 16.2.2006. After completion of service of the respondents, only one opportunity be granted to the appellant to argue the appeal, failing which, the same shall be dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy be supplied dasti on payment of usual charges.