ROOP NARAYAN Vs. SHAMBHOO LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19. 4. 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimbahera in Civil Misc. Case No. 14 of 1992 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant u/o. 9 R. 8, CPC dated 28. 5. 1990 and refused to restore the Original Civil Suit No. 41/88.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a money suit for recovery of Rs. 10,668/- against the defendant-respondent before the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh Camp Chittorgarh, which was subsequently trans-ferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nimbahera.

(3.) NORMALLY, when the suit is dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff-appellant, it is restored on an application u/o. 9 R. 8, CPC filed by the plaintiff, if it is established that he was prevented by any sufficient cause for appearing when the case was called on for hearing. The word "sufficient cause" has been liberally construed by the Courts. In Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari & Ors. (1), the Apex Court observed as under:- "the words "sufficient cause" receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. "