C.L.VERMA, j. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by Taukir Ahmad against the order dated 12-2-98 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi in Revision No. 160 of 90/Ballia. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 10-4-90 passed by the trial Court restoring the suit to its original number.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned trail Court after considering the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence on record came to the conclusion that there existed sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application and for restoring the case to its original number. The trail Court exercised its discretion with due care and caution recalling the order dated 8-6-89 and restored the suit to its original number. He granted restoration subject to payment of Rs. 25/- as costs. In the circumstances of the case the order passed by the trail Court was just and proper and opened the door of justice for both parties. The learned Additional Commissioner has gone on assumption and has wrongly observed that no cause for absence had been made out.
(3.) AFTER having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully examining the material on record, I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court that there existed sufficient cause for condoning the delay and for restoring the suit to its original number. I do not agree with the view expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner.;