Sir John Edge, C.J and Tyrrell, J.:— This is an application to set aside a decree passed in default of appearance dismissing an appeal. We are satisfied that the non-appearance of the vakil to represent the appellant at the hearing was caused by the accidental omission of the vakil's name from the printed cause-list. The gentleman in question in our experience invariably attends to his clients' cases and follows the practice of the Court with regularity. We consider that this is a case in which the decree should be set aside and the appeal [56] reinstated. There is, however, a further objection raised, namely, that no special vakalatnama has been filed authorizing the vakils, or either of them, especially to make this application, and it has been contended that the vakalatnama which authorized these vakils to file the appeal and to conduct the proceedings in it, and which was rightly filed, lapsed and determined the moment the decree dismissing the appeal was passed. That contention cannot in our opinion be supported. Under the vakalatnama authorizing the vakils to conduct the proceedings in the appeal they were authorized to conduct proceedings in execution subsequent to decree, whether those proceedings in execution were by or against their clients. It is also manifest that if we set aside the decree of dismissal and reinstate the appeal it will not be a fresh appeal, but will be an appeal to which the vakalatnama already filed applies, and it would seem strange if under these circumstances it were necessary to file a special vakalatnama for the simple purpose of enabling the appellant to have, not a new appeal entered, but his original appeal reinstated and proceeded with. In our opinion no fresh vakalatnama was necessary. We accordingly set aside the decree of dismissal and reinstate the appeal on the list of pending appeals in this Court. We make no order as to costs.