The main legal point established is that a specific finding of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance is necessary to restore a suit, and the court must act within its jurisdiction without any mistaken assumptions.

K.S. Paripoornan, J.

1. The first counter petitioner in I. A. No. 4541 of 1989 (first defendant in O. S. No. 258 of 1984), Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner and the second counter petitioner in the court below (plaintiff and the second defendant in the suit) are the respondents herein. The first respondent herein (the plaintiff in the suit) filed a petition for restoration of the suit dismissed for default, to file. The court below allowed the same, by order dated 5-12-1990. The first defendant has come up in revision, against the afore - said order passed by the court below.

2. I heard counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. K. C. John, as also counsel for the first respondent, Mr. Roy Chacko.

3. The revision petitioner and the first respondent are the husband and wife. There seems to be some difference of opinion between them. The suit was filed as early as in 1984. The suit was filed and conducted in the lower court by the plaintiff through a power of attorney holder. The revision petitioner herein (first defendant) filed I. A. No. 2215 of 1P85 for directing the plaintiff to appear in person in the court. The court below allowed the said application, on 30-8-1986. This is an order rendered under O.3 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case was posted to 4-1-1988. On that day, neither the plaintiff nor her power of attorney holder was present. The suit was dismissed. The power of attorney holder filed an application for restoration of the suit. The court below noticed that the power of attorney holder was present at the time of roll call and the same presiding officer, who dismissed the suit, allowed the application for restoration. The revision petitioner herein filed C. R. P. No. 528 of 1989 in this Court. This Court noticed the fact that the suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiff and her power of attorney holder were absent; since it was proved that the power of attorney holder was present, it was held that the restoration ordered by the court below does not merit interference in revision by this Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. In C. R. P. No. 528 of 1989, the order passed by the court below in I. A. No. 2215 of 1985 dated 30-8-1986 as one passed under Order III R.1 C. P. C was adverted to. This Court further noticed that the defendant has a plea that the power of attorney itself is spurious and not genuine. This Court observed that it is a question that has to be decided in the suit itself since this is one of the issues raised in the suit. The restoration of the suit to file on the ground that the power of attorney holder was present when the suit was called on for hearing on 4-1-1988 and the assumption that the plaintiff and the power of attorney holder were absent being a mistake, (the restoration of the suit was found not to merit interference in revision. This Court directed the suit itself to be disposed of by giving top priority.

5. The suit was included in the special list for trial on 4-12-1989. The power of attorney holder was present on that day in court. The plaintiff was absent. The court below held that the plaintiff has not complied with the order passed in I A. No. 2215 of 1985 dated 30-8-1986 directing the plaintiff to appear in person. There was non compliance of the order issued under Order III R.1 C.P. C. So, the suit was dismissed for non compliance of the said order, on 4-12-1989. The power of attorney holder filed I. A. No. 4541 of 1989 to restore the suit to file. The plea was that the dismissal of the suit is against the directions of this Court in C.R.P. No. 528 of 1989 and that the plaintiff is not bound" to appear in court.

6. The court below considered the matter in detail, by order dated 5-12-1990, and took the view that the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 528 of 1989 impliedly dispensed with the personal appearance of the plaintiff, as ordered in I. A. No. 2215 of 1985. It was held that in view of the order of