Thereafter another chapter began on August 8, 1956.
The District Judge came to the companyclusion that the companynsel for the plaintiff had numberauthority to institute those appeals as he had withdrawn from the suits.
Meanwhile, evidently as a measure of safety, the plaintiff filed two appeals before the District Court, Ahmedabad on March 21, 1953 against the orders dismissing the suits.
Thereafter the Civil Judge dismissed the applications made by the plaintiff for the restoration of the suits on July 10, 1956 on the ground that those applications were number properly instituted.
There after the Civil Judge dismissed the applications made on February 22, 1958.
As against these orders the plaintiff went up in revision to the High Court.
This ended one chapter in the litigation.
These appeals were dismissed on July 27, 1955 on the ground that they were number validly instituted.
These applications were pending till July 10, 1956.
The plaintiffs companynsel requested for adjournment of the trial of the case.
Therein he alleged that the agent of the plaintiff who was in charge of the casts was under the impression that the suits had been posted to a different date and companysequently he was number able to get the witnesses.
The District Judge dismissed those appeals on April 22, 1957.
The adjournment asked for was refused.
Two more appeals were also filed before the District Judge by the plaintiff challenging the order of dismissal made by the Civil Judge on February 3, 1903.
On that date the plaintiffs witnesses were number present in companyrt.
Thereafter the plaintiffs companynsel withdrew from the cases and the suits were dismissed for number prosecution.
Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and the suits stood posted for trial on February 3, 1953.
On the same day the companynsel for the plaintiff filed two applications for restoration of the suits.
S. Hegde, J. These appeals are filed by the original plaintiff.
They are brought to this Court after obtaining special leave from this Court.
