relied upon, the appellant must have been given an opportunity to rebut the same. The said opportunity could not have been availed of by the appellant because the restoration application was dismissed in default before it could be decided. So, there was no occasion for the appellant to place her rejoinder. He submits that even the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant was getting proper legal advice regarding litigation from her son at home is not correct. According to him, even though the appellant’s son is an Advocate by profession, he is not the legal advisor to the appellant. He was not the counsel for the appellant in the suit in question, from which the present appeal arises. The appellant has her own lawyer, from whom she is seeking advice. That apart, it is his submission that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon earlier litigations claimed and alleged by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, in which admittedly, the present appellant was never a party. Hence, the orders passed in the same and / or, the fate of the same is neither against the appellant nor binding on her. Even the finding that the said litigations have been engineered by the appellant and her son is without any basis. In the last, he submits that the learned Single
