First Impugned Order allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that there was a mortgage executed by the respondent. It is to be noted that none appeared for the appellant in the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant filed CMP No.10107 of 2017 in OSA No.189 of 2011, praying therein to “set aside” the First Impugned Order and for restoration of the main appeal for fresh hearing. The appellant contended that his erstwhile counsel (Mr. V. Manohar) was authorized only to appear in the MP filed 5 Hereinafter abbreviated to “MP”.6 to condone the delay [MP No.1 of 2011] and that there was no notice issued to him after registering of the appeal. The Division Bench vide the Second Impugned Order dismissed the CMP. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF: 11. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court gravely erred in holding that the plaint averments were not sufficient to conclude that there was a valid