( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the petitioner. The suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for injunction was dismissed for default. I. A. No. 256/95 filed by the respondents for restoration of the suit was allowed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court having found that the respondent has not satisfactorily explained the Cause for his absence on the day when the suit was dismissed for default, erred in allowing the LA. on extraneous reasons. The reason given by the respondent in the LA. (I. A. 256/95) for his absence on the day when the suit was posted for trial was that due to failure of the bus in which he was travelling, he could not attend the Court. The lower Court rejected this plea on the ground that the respondent has not produced the bus-ticket or let in any evidence to establish that the respondent was travelling in the bus and the bus failed. So saying, the lower Court categorically found as follows:"thus, viewing from any angle the reasons assigned by the petitioner- plaintiff in the petition affidavit are not at all satisfactory and they are not at all suffici