order dismissing I.A.No.2379 of 2009 require to be interfered with. The affidavit filed by the appellant in support of her prayer in I.A.No.2379 of 2009 would show that on account of her husband's continued ailments, she had entrusted the conduct of the case to a manager. It is stated that the manager secured a job abroad and resigned from employment and that led to the decree. The affidavit filed in support of the petition further shows that according to her, the information given to her husband, who was conducting the case on her behalf, was that I.A.No.124 of 2008 was posted to 30.11.2009 for adducing evidence. It is stated that accordingly, her husband went to the office of the counsel and then he came to know that the application was actually posted on 20.11.2009 and that, on account of her failure to appear before the court, the same was dismissed. It is stated that her failure to appear before the court on 20.11.2009 was not wilful or deliberate. It is on these basis that she sought restoration of I.A.No.124 of 2008. Although it is true that, the appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of her prayer, fact remains that the averments in the affidavit, in the absence of anything to the contrary, would show that there was no deliberate laches, disentitling the appellant a favourable order in I.A.No.2379 of 2009. In such circumstances, we set aside the order dated 03.12.2010 dismissing I.A.No.2379 of 2009.
