G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner filed a suit for "recovery of Rs. 3,500/ - on 16th of October, 1985. On 7th of January, 1986 the suit was fixed for a matter on which the presence of the Plaintiff was not necessary. Due to Lawyers strike the counsel for the parties did not appear on the date of hearing and the case was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 7th of February, 1986, the Plaintiff filed application under Order 9 Rule 4, of Code for restoration of the suit. Later on he filed an application for amendment of the said application to plead that he came to know of the order of dismissal of the suit in default on 6th of February, 1986. Therefore the application was within time. Both the applications have been dismissed by the trial Court vide two separate orders dated 28th of March, 1986. This is revision against the aforesaid orders.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and consideration of the matter, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed and the suit deserves to be restored. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has not disputed that there was a strike of the lawyers, which went on for over a month and non -appearance of the counsel for the Plaintiff due to strike should not stand in the way of the Plaintiff in restoration of the suit provided the application is filed within time. However, he urges that the application it barred by one day and since no explanation for the delay has been furnished no relief can be granted to the Plaintiff. On the latter matter, I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Respondent. The strike of the lawyers continued till 7th of February, 1986 and that is why the Plaintiff had to file the application himself It is nobody's case that the Plaintiff was informed of the dismissal of the suit in default on or after 7th of January, 1986 by his counsel or the other side. The Court below was too technical in not allowing the amendment of the application. When suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code, the Court has the jurisdiction to restore the suit even without giving notice to the opposite side. S. S. Sodhi, J. in S. Maharaj Bakhsh Singh v. Shrimati Charan Kaur : (1986) 90 P. L. R. 179, has taken rather a stringent view regarding the strike of the lawyers and at present I am not prepared to subscribe to that view. No hard and fast rule can be laid and the matter will have to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the matter does not need a detailed discussion at this stage because the counsel for the Respondent does not object to the restoration of the suit on account of the non -appearance of the lawyers due to strike. In some appropriate case when occasion would arise, I will express my detailed view.
(3.) FOR all the reasons given above, I condone a day's delay and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 7th of January, 1986 and restore the suit to be proceeded with from the stage before dismissed. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear in the trial Court on 18th of November, 1986.;