Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service 3. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 17.08.2012 passed in Misc. Appln. no. 305/2010 in Eviction Appeal no. 11/2010, whereby the application filed by the Petitioners for restoration of the Appeal, came to be rejected. 4. Shri Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that the Advocate who was appearing for the Petitioner, had sworn an affidavit stating that on account of his fault, the matter came to be dismissed for default. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order has rejected the application essentially on the ground that the application was signed by the Advocate though the same was not filed by the Applicants themselves. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this aspect has been well settled by Judgment of this Court report in 1998(2) Goa L.T. 230 in the case of Union Bank of India vs. M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the cause for default was in view of the fact that the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner was given a wrong date by the colleague who was requested to represent him on the earlier occasion. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that the same deserves to be quashed adn set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Order. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioners have not shown any cause for restoration of the Appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records. The Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order has dismissed the application on two counts. The first is that the Advocate alone could not have filed the application for restoration. This point is no longer res-integra in view of the Judgment relied upon of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors. (supra) wherein at para 4 it has been stated thus: "4. This point is no longer res-integra in view of the Judgment relied upon of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors. (supra) wherein at para 4 it has been stated thus: "4. Shri Ramani Learned Advocate for the Petitioner however relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the same case reported in Ananta Pandu Porobo Desai and anr. vs. Smt. Lalita Poi (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 681(I) wherein it was held that the application can be made by the same Advocate on the strength of the original Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in his favour. It is thus clear that the decision relied upon by the Judicial Commissioner, Goa in Ananta Desai's case (supra) was reversed by the Supreme Court.” 7. Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, the ground for dismissing the application on that count, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. With regard to the cause sought to be shown by the Petitioners on perusal of the affidavit of the Advocate, there is specific averment that on account of his own fault, the matter came to be dismissed for default. Apart from that, there is an explanation as to what prevented the Advocate to appear on the relevant date when the matter was dismissed for default. Considering that the party should not suffer on account of the default of the Advocate, I find that the Tribunal was not justified to pass the impugned Order and dismissed the application for restoration. 9. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, points out that considering that the matter under dispute is pending from the year 1993, it would be appropriate to give directions to the Tribunal to dispose of the Eviction Appeal preferred by the Petitioner expeditiously within a time period. 10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the affidavit sworn by the Advocate, I find that the Petitioners have made out a case to restore the Appeal dismissed for default. Hence, I find that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer 20(a). Hence, I find that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer 20(a). (ii) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said Appeal preferably within six months from the date of the receipt of the said Order. (iii) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.