- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Heard Sri P. K. Mukherji for the revisionist and Sri H. N. Sharma for the opposite party.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by Sri J. P. Narayan, Civil Judge, Hapur who has dismissed an application for restoration of the suit. The suit was originally instituted at Ghaziabad and due to bifurcation of the district and the creation of new district (Hapur) the case was transferred there. The distance between Hapur and Ghaziabad is said to be 35 Kms. only. Plaintiff-Bank was being represented by Sri Satya Ketu, Advo cate of Ghaziabad who continued represent the Bank at Hapur. The case was fixed at Hapur on 14-3-89 on which date the plain tiff as well as the defendant were absent and the case was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 4, C. P. C. An application for restora tion was filed on the very next day i. e. 15-3-89 supported by an affidavit of Sri Satya Ketu, Advocate who stated that due to traf fic jam he could not reach Hapur when the case was called out. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that Sri Satya Ketu was accom panied by witnesses who under the cir cumstances of the case could have been only the Bank Manager or other Bank staff. It is surprising that the learned Civil Judge dis missed the restoration application on the ground that no reason has been disclosed for the absence of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is not a person and is a corporate body, it was sufficient that counsel filed his own affidavit explaining the reason for his inability to appear before the court. In view of the above, the revision is allowed and order passed by Civil Judge, Hapur on 12-1-90 is set aside. The suit is ordered to be restored to its original num ber. Both the parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge, Hapur on 2nd Sept. , 1996. The court below is directed to decide the case within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced by the Bank before the lower court. Revision allowed. .;