1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petition and the order of the Courts below. For the perusal of the Court, copies of documents have also been taken from the counsel for the plaintiff petitioner i.e. receipt of the Government of Rajasthan, repayment of amount for use and occupation charges of land in dispute. Receipts are in the name of Harbans Lal, a stone contractor. These are in the name of Harbans Lal, a partner of the firm. It is the case of the plaintiff petitioner in the suit that the land in dispute has been taken by the firm on rent from Durga Prasad, respondent No. 3. In the suit the plaintiff petitioner in suit that the land in dispute has been taken by the firm on rent from Durga Prasad, respondent No. 3. In the suit the plaintiff petitioner engaged the services of Liladhar Agrawal, Advocate and one Shyam Gupta, Advocate. The suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution as the advocate pleaded no instructions. This has happened on 15.9.1993. On that date the plaintiff petitioner was not present in the Court as he was ill. Immediately after he came to know about this fact, he filed application on 13.10.1993 for restoration of