MUKESH CHANDANDAS HARVANI Vs. PRAMILABAI RAMESH SANGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) THE plaintiffs suit came to be dismissed as he failed to appear on the date it was fixed for recording of evidence, i. e. on 7-11-1994. Thereafter, the plaintiff having come to know that the suit has been dismissed in default, moved an application under Order IX, Rule 4 C. P. C. for restoration of the suit. This application came to be filed on 14-11-1994. It was the case of the plaintiff that he could not attend the Court due to illness and even could not contact his Advocate. It was further stated that his father who was holding of Power of Attorney on his behalf, had gone to attend marriage and, therefore, the suit should be restored to file. The learned Court found that the plaintiff has failed to give sufficient cause for his absence and dismissed the application.

(3.) MR. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the application for restoration of the suit has been dismissed only on the ground that there was no medical certificate filed in support of the application and that the father of the applicant/plaintiff could have very well attended the Court or informed his Advocate. It is submitted that the plaintiff has immediately taken up steps to seek restoration of the suit and it was not the intention of the plaintiff to prolong the matter and this was the first date when the case was taken up for recording of evidence and came to be dismissed in default and, therefore, this Court should quash the impugned order and restore the suit to file in the interests of justice.