The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show sufficient cause for non-appearance in an application for restoration and the need to prevent the abuse of the legal system.

J. P. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against the order dated 24. 3. 2006 passed by Additional district Judge, Delhi in Regular Civil Appeal against order dated 14. 10. 2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi.

( 2 ) VIDE order dated 14. 10. 2005 learned Civil Judge, Delhi dismissed an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the plaintiff for restoration of the suit, dismissed on 19. 7. 2005 because no explanation was furnished in the application for restoration of the suit. The appeal was also dismissed.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Babban Kumar Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 4 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC)and Director NDMC alleging that he was an allottee of ?tehbazari? by Chaturvedi committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India. The plaintiff is carrying on his business of merchant/general trading and watch repairing since 1978-79 on the allotted place in a lane between New Delhi House and Statesman Building along with boundary wall of New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

( 5 ) IT is alleged that the plaintiff was availing the service of telephone connection granted by MTNL at the allotted site since July, 1996 and received the bills of telephone at the address 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

( 6 ) IT is averred that on 24. 12. 2002 NDMC personnel came to the squatting place of the plaintiff and started lifting goods which he was displaying for inviting customers and told him that a notice dated 19. 12. 2002 was being issued to him. The plaintiff obtained Photostat copy of the show cause notice from the office of defendant n 24. 12. 2002 itself.

( 7 ) THE show cause notice reads as under : i) Permissible trade is not being run as selling of Electronic goods and repair of watch instead of allotted land i. e. , General Merchant. ii) Occupied the space 8x4 instead of allowed size 6x4.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff was called upon to send reply within 10 days as to why his allotment be not cancelled. It appears that the plaintiff then filed the above mentioned suit for quashing the show cause notice. Interim stay was granted. It is alleged that on 9. 10. 2004 the staff of NDMC came and wanted to disconnect the telephone from the place of squatting. Upon this the plaintiff served a legal notice on the NDMC. It is submitted that there is a threat to demolish the installation of phone service.

( 9 ) LASTLY, it is prayed that plaintiff is enjoying telephone connection to promote his business. It should be declared that he has a right to enjoy a phone service. The defendants should be restrained from removing the telephone or cancelling ? tehbazari?.

( 10 ) PERUSAL of the order sheet shows that on 19. 7. 2005 nobody appeared in the court of learned civil judge to pursue the suit. The matter was called again at 11. 30 A. M. Still nobody appeared. Then the matter was called at 1. 00 p. M. Only counsel for defendants appeared and again the matter was called at 2. 30 P. M. repeatedly. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed in default.

( 11 ) I have perused the order dated 14. 10. 2005 passed by the learned civil judge on the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC. It is apparent that the application did not disclose any reason for non appearance nor it was accompanied by an affidavit. Even the unavoidable circumstances have not been explained. Therefore, the learned civil judge, in my view, had no option but to dismiss the application.

( 12 ) I have also perused the judgment passed by the first appellate court in the appeal against the above said order dated 14. 10. 2005. The learned additional District Judge, Delhi has examined the trial court record, the grounds of appeal and the impugned order dated 14. 10. 2005 and has opined that no defe