The term 'sufficient cause' in the Civil Procedure Code should be liberally construed, and technicality should not come in the way of deciding rights of the parties.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.4.1998 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, in I.A.No.261 of 1996 in A.S.No.49 of 1995.)

This Revision is directed against the Order of Subordinate Court, Dharapuram in I.A.No. 261 of 1996 in A.S.No. 49 of 1995, dated 27.4.1998 allowing the Petition filed under Or.41, R.19 of C.P.C. ordering restoration of the Appeal in A.S.No. 49 of 1995 which was dismissed for default on 13.11.1996. Third Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No. 578 of 1983 before the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram for declaration of title to 'A' schedule property and for injunction and also partition of 'B' schedule property and other reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.1.1995. The Respondents preferred A.S.No. 49 of 1995 before the Sub Court, Dharapuram. The said appeal was heard by the Subordinate Court and the respondents filed an application in I.A.No. 179 of 1996 for reopening of the appeal and the matter was posted for further arguments. The said application was allowed and the main Appeal was posted for further arguments on 13.11.1996. On 13.11.1996, the Respondents/ Plaintiffs did not appear and hence, the appeal was dismissed for default.

3. The Respondents have filed I.A.No. 261 of 1996 for restoration of the Appeal dismissed for default on 13.11.1996 and the same was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.300/- which is challenged in this Revision Petition.

4. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that under Or.41, R.19 C.P.C., the Appellants have not made sufficient cause for their non appearance and while so, the lower Appellate Court was not correct in ordering restoration of the appeal. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of the 5th Plaintiff, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Appellants has submitted that the reasons for the absence has been satisfactorily explained by the Appellants/Respondents and the lower appellate Court has rightly ordered restoration and that order does not suffer from any infirmity.

5. I have carefully examined the records and considered the submissions of either side.

6. As against the dismissal of the Suit in O.S.No.578 of 1983, the Plaintiffs have preferred A.S.No. 49 of 1995. The first Appellate Court, being a final Court on factual aspects, statutory right of appeal is available to the Plaintiffs unless there is deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellants/Plaintiffs, they should not be deprived of the opportunity to pursue the appeal.

7. According to the Appellants, the third appellant was unwell and hence, he could not meet the counsel and therefore, the counsel has reported no instructions on 13.11.1996. To show that the fifth Appellant – Nachimuthu Gounder was suffering from illness, he has examined himself as P.W.1 and the medical certificate was marked as Ex.P.1. There is no reason to disbelieve Ex.P1 medical Certificate and the evidence of the fifth Appellant. In consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1, the first Appellate Court has ordered restoration of the Appeal.

8. The word "Sufficient cause" found in Or.41, R.19 has to be liberally construed. In considering the application under Or.41, R.19, Courts will have to adopt a judicial approach. In the matter of hearing appeals, Courts duty is to impart justice to the litigants. Hence, technicality should not come in the way of deciding rights of the parties. In consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1, the lower Appellate Court has exercised discretion ordering restoration of the appeal. The revisional Court would not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is perverse or manifestly erroneous. There is nothing to suggest that the impugned Order is perverse or erroneous. Only with a view to give opportunity to the Respondents in pursuing the matter, the first Appel