Judgment :- Review CMP (Sr) No.57881 of 1998 (for short ‘the Review Petition’) is filed seeking review of Order, dated 15-07-1998, in CRP.No.2570 of 1998 (for short ‘the CRP’). The petitioner in the Review Petition is the petitioner in the CRP filed against Order, dated 03-03-1998, in AS.No.42 of 1993, on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. Initially, the petitioner has filed OA.No.142 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur District, for certain reliefs. The said OA was disposed of by Order, dated 09-06-1992. Feeling partly aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed AS.No.42 of 1993. As the petitioner did not cooperate in disposal of the said appeal, the lower Court has dismissed the same for default and also forfeited the right of the petitioner to seek its restoration. Feeling aggrieved to the extent of forfeiture of the petitioner’s right to file the application for restoration, the petitioner filed the CRP. This Court, by Order, dated 15-07-1998, dismissed the said CRP, confirming the order of the lower Court. I have heard Sri VSR. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no appearance for the respondents at the hearing. Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) provides that where an appeal is dismissed under Rule 11 sub-Rule (2) or Rule 17, the appellant may apply to the Appellate Court for the re-admission of the appeal and where it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing or from depositing the sum so required, the Court shall readmit the appeal on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. Thus, under the above-noted provision, the party, whose appeal is dismissed in default, is conferred with a right to seek re-admission of the appeal on his putting forth sufficient cause for his non-appearance leading to dismissal of his appeal in default. In my opinion, such a statutory right cannot be curtailed or scuttled by any Court even if the conduct of the party was not to its satisfaction. In my opinion, such a statutory right cannot be curtailed or scuttled by any Court even if the conduct of the party was not to its satisfaction. While this Court cannot find fault with the lower Court in dismissing the appeal in default for non-appearance of the petitioner, the Court should not have gone further by forfeiting the right conferred on the petitioner by the statute for restoration of the appeal on his putting forth sufficient cause for his nonappearance. The lower Court appeared to have passed the order more out of anger than on objectivity. This Court ought to have corrected this legal aberration on the part of the lower Court in the CRP. In this view of the matter, I find that the Order under revision suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. In the light of the reasons stated above, Order, dated 15-07-1998, in CRP.No.2570 of 1998 is recalled and for the same reasons, order, dated 03-03-1998, in AS.No.42 of 1993, on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, is set aside to the extent of forfeiture of the right of the petitioner to seek restoration of the appeal before the lower Court. The petitioner shall be free to file appropriate application for restoration of appeal, which if done, shall be disposed of by the lower Court in accordance with law. Accordingly, both the Review Petition and the Civil Revision Petition are allowed.