RAJASTHAN TRADING AGENCY Vs. BILAT JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of valid service of notice, no body appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) THIS revision application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to set aside the order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default.

(3.) THE court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the suit on the ground that he had not stated about the filing of hazri. It is a material omission. The karpardaz of the petitioner specifically stated that he was standing outside the court and when the case was called out he went to call his advocate. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has shown negligence in prosecuting the case.