have already stated, there was no prayer in the petitions, I.A.Nos. 377 & 378/1997, to implead the appellant in the petition to condone the delay. In I.A.No.311/1997 also, there was no prayer to publish the notice of the I.A.. The paper produced shows that the notice of delay petition was not published at all. The endorsement made by the process server regarding reasons for non-service is suspicious. He had stated that he was unable to find the whereabouts of the additional 5th respondent. It creates a genuine doubt as to whether he had made any enquiry at all. The lower appellate court has not considered any of these aspects at all while dismissing the petition for restoration. It is also to be noted that the lower appellate court directed the appellant to take steps to publish the notice in the paper, and also to affix the same. It is not clear whether the notice was affixed. After publishing the notice, sufficient time was not given to the appellant to appear before the lower appellate court. So, the reasons stated by the lower appellate court that there was proper service of notice on the appellant is against the facts. So, I have no other option, but to set aside the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court and also the order passed by it in I.A.No.1267/1995, and direct the lower appellate court to re-hear the petition to condone the delay and
