H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Challenging the refusal to restore Money Suit No 30/85 filed by the plaintifi7appellant-Bank by the then Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 12/94 which was dismissed for default, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff-Bank.

2. I have heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the defendant/respondents.

3. The plaintiff/appellant-Bank filed the aforesaid suit for realization of a sum of Rs.8,75,806.98 with interest thereon against the defendant/respondents. The suit was at the hearing stage, i.e., 23.8.1998 was fixed for hearing. Having found the plaintiff/appellant-Bank absent on that date without any step, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/appellant-Bank filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC, for restoration of the said suit to file along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same, but the application for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant-Bank has not been able to show sufficient reason for delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit to file which was admittedly filed after seven months, consequently the restoration was also dismissed.

4. Referring to the application filed for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC, Mr. Sarma submits that due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the learned Counsel engaged for conducting the suit of the plaintiff, he failed to note down the date of hearing, i.e., 23.8.1993, in his diary consequently causing dismissal of the suit for non-appearance and thereafter the plaintiff/appellant-Bank officials as usual having been enquired with the learned Counsel about the fate of the suit,, they were informed that the date of the suit, has not been noted down in his diary due to mistake. The Bank employees made search in the court on 25.4.1994 and they could know that the suit was dismissed for default on 23.8.1993 itself. Having come to know about the dismissal of the suit, they immediately on 27.4.1994 filed the application for restoration of the suit to file along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application. In support of the prayer for restoration, plaintiff/appellant-Hank examined the Branch Manager of the Bank as PW-1 who was duly cross-examined by the defendant/respondents.

Mr. Sarma submits that the plaintiff/appellant-Bank has been able to substantiate the sufficient cause by adducing evidence, the cause of absence, as mentioned in the application and the same being the sufficient cause, the learned trial court was not right in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and thereby not restoring the suit to file. In support of his contention Mr. Sarma cited a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag v. Katiji AIR 1987 SC

5. Refuting the contentions raised by Mr. Sarma, Mr. Goswami submits that in fact there are major contradictions between the statements made in the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for restoration of the suit to file and the evidence so adduced in the court. Referring to the earlier orders, and that the plaintiff was negligent in pursuing the suit not only on the fateful day, but also on earlier occasions. He further submits that facts as stated by the plaintiff/appellant-Bank in its application to the effect that they could know about the dismissal of the suit only on 25.4.1993, itself, is unbelievable and the learned trial court accordingly arrived at a right decision by passing the impugned order which does not require any interference. It is further submitted that in case of determination on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, equity has no role to play on equitable ground delay is not to be condoned. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel referred to a dec