( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner. The learned Counsel for respondent could not be heard as he could not keep himself present to canvass his arguments.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the concurrent orders of the Courts-below rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of her petition filed under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1989.

( 3 ) THE petitioner had presented the petition under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code in the said Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1989 against respondent in the Trial Court seeking permission to sue as an indigent person for the reliefs prayed therein. That petition came to be dismissed for default on 4-7-1991. Subsequently, she made an application under Order 9, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1991 before the Trial Court to restore her said petition. The respondent opposed that application. A formal enquiry was held by the learned Munsiff. The petitioner adduced evidence in support of her said application. On the basis of evidence the learned Munsiff recorded positive