REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 12811/2004 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment dated August 7, 2004 Notices of the application as well as of the appeal were directed to be issued to the respondents. The respondents could not be served through ordinary process of the court. Therefore, they were directed to be served through publication in newspaper “The Statesman”. The respondents were accordingly served through publication. However, none has appeared for the respondents despite publication. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons given for the delay is that the counsel for the appellant was under a wrong and bona fide impression that a revision petition lay against the impugned order for which the period of limitation was 90 days. As a matter of fact revision petition was filed and it was only when the Registry pointed out that no revision was maintainable against the impugned order that the appellant filed the first appeal. Having regard to what has been noticed above and the fact that none has appeared for the respondent to contest the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. FAO No. 299/2004 This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge dated August 7, 2004 whereby the application of the appellant for restoration of suit No. 67/2003 was dismissed in default. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant had filed an application for restoration on the ground that prior to July 6, 2004, the suit was listed on May 29, 2004 On the said date, though the court had given the next date as July 6, 2004, the counsel had wrongly noted it down as July 16, 2004 When on July 16, 2004, the case was not shown in the cause list, inquiries were made and it transpired that the case had already been dismissed on July 6, 2004 Therefore, the application for restoration was filed. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that prior to July 6, 2004 suit was listed on May 28, 2004 and not on May 29, 2004 as stated in the application. This appears to be the sole reason why the application for restoration was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that prior to July 6, 2004 suit was listed on May 28, 2004 and not on May 29, 2004 as stated in the application. This appears to be the sole reason why the application for restoration was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was by mistake that in the application for restoration the previous date was mentioned as May 29, 2004 instead of May 28, 2004 and that the learned Additional District Judge wrongly dismissed the application on this typographical error. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the suit was at the initial stage when it was dismissed in default. The defendants were yet to be served. Having regard to the above facts, I am of the view that the failure on the part of the appellant in not entering the appearance on July 6, 2004 was bona fide and the reason advanced ought to have been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, more so, when the defendants were yet to be served in the matter. In the circumstances, I set aside the order dated August 7, 2004 The case is remanded back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on September 23, 2008. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.