S. Rafat Alam and Bhagwan Din, JJ. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 25.3.1998 rejecting the application of the plaintiff under Order IX, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the order of dismissals of the suit under Rule 8 of Order IX.
(2.) We have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) The appellant filed Suit No. 573 of 1990 for specific performance. However, when the plaintiff-appellant failed to appear on the date of hearing, i.e., 4.1.1996, it was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. An application for restoration of the suit under Order IX, Rule 9 was moved on 2.2.1996 but the learned Ist Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, by the order under appeal dated 25.3.1998, rejected the same, inter alia, on the ground that from the date of dismissal of the suit, i.e., 4.1.1996 till the date of filing of the restoration application, i.e. 2.2.1996, day-to-day explanation has not been furnished by the appellant, and that the application has not been moved by Abhay Narain Pandey who was the Secretary of the plaintiff society.;