JUDGMENT

V.B.Gupta, J.

Present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as 'Code') challenging judgment dated 29th October, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi and orders dated 24th April, 2009, 5th May, 2009 and 20th May, 2009, passed by Civil Judge, Delhi.

2. Petitioner herein, filed a suit for recovery against respondent in the year 1993.

3. On 25th April, 2009 that suit was dismissed in default due to non- appearance of the petitioner and his counsel.

4. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside order dated 25th April, 2009. That application was also dismissed in default on 5th May, 2009. Again petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for setting aside order dated 5th May, 2009. This application was dismissed by the trial court, vide impugned order dated 20th May, 2009.

5. Petitioner filed an appeal against order dated 25th April, 2009 of the trial court.

6. First appellate court, vide impugned order dated 29th October, 2009, dismissed the appeal.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that non appearance of the petitioner and his counsel on 25th April, 2009 and 5th May, 2009 was bonafide and was not willful or deliberate. Petitioner was assured by his counsel that he would represent him in his absence on 25th April, 2009. As such petitioner could not appear on that date.

8. It is further contented that counsel for petitioner was held up in other case and could not appear on 25th April, 2009 and 5th May, 2009. Counsel also submitted his case diary with details of cases listed for 25th April, 2009, in different courts. Since non appearance of the petitioner and his counsel on 25th April, 2009 and 5th May, 2009, was bonafide, so there was sufficient ground for allowing this petition.

9. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that suit was filed by the petitioner in the year1993. It is the petitioner who himself is getting the trial delayed. After dismissal of the suit, petitioner filed application for restoration which was again dismissed in default due to non appearance of petitioner and his counsel. So, there is no sufficient ground for restoration. This shows that petitioner is quite negligent and careless in pursuing its case. There is no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial court.

10. Petitioner has not placed on record copies of application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code, as well as application under Section 151 of the Code, to show as to what grounds he had taken in these applications for his non appearance. Nevertheless, both the courts below, in their orders have mentioned detailed reasons for non appearance of the petitioner.

11. Order dated 20th May, 2009 of the trial court read as under;

"None through the application U/s 151 CPC for setting aside order dated 05/05/09 by which application U/O 9 R. 9 on 25/04/09, along with reasons mentioned in the application. Due to non appearance on behalf of plaintiff on 05/05/09, the application U/O 9 R. 9 CPC was dismissed. No documents are annexed in support of the contention along with the application for not appearing on the previous dates and the reasons mentioned in the application has not inspire confidence accordingly. This also reflects the very casual approach of the plaintiff and want of due diligence in prosecution of the matter. Nothing is explained else by the plaintiff in support of contention nor any reason is explained for not appearing by the plaintiff when the suit was dismissed for non appearance on 25/04/09. I do not find any merit in this application. The application is accordingly dismissed."

12. While, relevant portion of Judgment dated 29.10.2009 of Additional District Judge reads as under:

"A perusal of order dated 25.04.09 shows that on the date fixed none appeared on behalf of plaintiff since morning and even none