V.D. Bhargava, J.
1. This is an application in revision filed against an order restoring an appeal under Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P. C. The appeal was pending in the court of the District Judge at Meerut. The respondent of the appeal who is an opposite party here had filed the vakalatnama of one Sri Tilk Ram Vakil. The case remained pending in the Court of the District Judge and later on it was transferred to the Court of the Judge Small Causes. No information of the date of hearing of the appeal was given to the client and the appeal was allowed ex parte.
2. The appeal was heard on the 3rd of March 1951 and decreed ex parte on 10th of March 1951. It appears that the counsel of the respondent had died and therefore no information could be sent to the client. The client later on when came to enquire in August, learnt that the appeal had been allowed ex parte. Thereafter he made an application for the restoration of the appeal and the court below granted it on payment of Rs. 15/- as costs. This application in revision has been filed on the ground that it was the duty of the respondent after he had engaged a counsel and filed a vakalatnama to remain in touch with his counsel and to find out the date of the hearing of the appeal.
3. The respondent as well as his lawyer were both negligent but the lower appellate Court allowed the application on payment of costs. I am unable to agree with this reasoning. When he had filed a vakalatnama it was the duty of the counsel to look after the case and when the counsel had died it was the duty of the court to inform the respondent directly that his counsel was dead and arrangement of another counsel may be made. Here he was not aware of the death of his counsel and the date of hearing of the appeal. The appeal has rightly been restored. There is no force in this application in revision and it is accordingly dismissed.