- (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal, dated March 1, 1973. Briefly the facts are that Mst. Astaila, the plaintiff, instituted a suit for possession of house against the defendants in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kaithal. The trial Court framed the issues in the suit on February 19, 1971 and thereafter adjourned it to June 10, 1971, for the evidence of the plaintiff. On that date, the counsel for the plaintiff stated that he was not feeling well and the case be adjourned. His prayer was not opposed by the counsel for the opposite party. Consequently, the case was adjourned to November 12, 1971, for the evidence of the plaintiff. The Court further ordered that the plaintiff should take the summons dasti. It may be mentioned at this stage that the plaintiff had summoned his witnesses for June 10, 1971. On the next date of hearing, i.e. November 12, 1971, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was present. The suit was, therefore, dismissed in default under Order 9, Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff made an application for restoration on November 30, 1971 through another counsel on the ground that his lawyer was out of station on that date. The petition for restoration was contested by the defendants. The trial Court held that there were no sufficient grounds for restoring the suit. Consequently, it dismissed the application. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge who affirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. She has come up in revision against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge to this Court.
(2.) The only question for determination is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to restore the suit ? It is not disputed that the application for restoration was filed within the period of limitation. It is clear from the record that the plaintiff had summoned witnesses for June 10, 1971. Some of the witnesses had also been served for that date. It is, however, not clear from the record as to whether the witnesses of the plaintiff mere present on June 10, 1971 or not. The adjournment was, however, given on account of the illness of the counsel for the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that she was not intimated about the next date of hearing by her counsel and, therefore, she could not appear on that date. Her counsel fell ill and he also could not present himself before the court on the date of hearing. In the application for restoration she, however, stated that her counsel was out of station, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Moti Ram Aggarwal, the counsel for the petitioner in trial Court has died. It may be that on account of illness, Mr. Moti Ram might have gone out of station. The two statements are not irreconcilable. It is apparent on the record that the plaintiff had summoned her witnesses for June 10, 1970. Only one adjournment for leading the evidence had been taken by her counsel. It was not such a case in which various adjournments had been given to the plaintiff for recording the evidence and she failed to do so.
(3.) After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that there are sufficient reasons for restoration of the suit.;