( 1 ) ). This revision application by the State of Gujarat and mamlatdar, Navsari under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code arises from the order dated 14-7-1998 of the Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari in Misc. Civil (Fari File) application No. 41 of 1996 under which the application filed by the petitioners for the restoration of their Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1991 which has been dismissed for non-prosecution, has been rejected.

( 2 ) ). The facts of the case in brief are that the State of Gujarat and Mamlatdar, navsari filed a Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1991 against the defendants-respondents for the recovery of Rs. 83,948. 87 ps. The summons of the suit were duly served on the defendants-respondents and they had also submitted their written statements. The suit was fixed for recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners on 10-10-1995 in the trial Court.

( 3 ) ). It is a case of the plaintiffs-petitioners that they remained present through their advocate on each and every date fixed by the Court. On 27-8-1996 their suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners. The Advocate of the plaintiffs-petitioners was in need of some document for examination of the witnesses and he prayed for the adjournment of the matter by filing an application. This application for adjournment of the suit filed by the Advocate of the plaintiffs-petitioners was strongly opposed by the defendants-respondents and the learned trial Court declined to grant any adjournment. On the same day the suit was dismissed for nonprosecution.

( 4 ) ). Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application in the trial Court and prayer has been made therein for restoration of the suit to its original number. This application was opposed by the defendants-respondents and the learned trial Court under its order 14-7-1998 dismissed this application hence this revision application before this Court by the plaintiffs-petitioners.

( 5 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in rejecting the application only on the ground that same has been filed after a long delay and it is barred by time. It has next been contended that after dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, the plaintiffs-petitioners applied for the certified copy of the said order and after obtaining the certified copy thereof they filed an application on 4-11-1996. It is urged that in case the time taken in obtaining certified copy of the order is excluded, the application is not barred by limitation. It is submitted that even if it is taken that there was some delay in filing of the application but when it is not the case found by the trial Court that the plaintiffs-petitioners deliberately and purposefully made this delay or the officers have acted mala fide in filing this application, the dismissal thereof on this ground may have some justification but merely on ground that some delay has been there in filing of the application, the same should not have been dismissed. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed relevance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123. Lastly, it is contended that the learned trial Court has acted highly arbitrary in rejecting this application. The reasons given for rejection thereof are perverse.

( 6 ) ). On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents contended that this revision application is not maintainable as this order is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. It has next been contended that the defendants-petitioners are negligent in conducting their suit and as such the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing of the same for non-prosecution. Not only this but the application for restoration of suit has also been filed after considerable long delay. Moreover, no sufficient c