The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance and the court's power to remove injustice on technical grounds.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the decree dated 29.3.2004 made in C.M.A. No.13 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Pattukottai, confirming the fair and decretal order passed in I.A. No.45 of 2003 in O.S. No.138 of 1996 dated 8.9.2003 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu.

2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the above Suit for declaration and injunction. The said Suit was dismissed for default on 29.10.2001. I.A. No.45 of 2003 was filed before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Orathanadu, to restore the Suit by contending that the Suit was posted on 29.10.2001 and at that time the second petitioner contested for the post of Panchayat President and thereafter he was looking after his father, who was taking treatment at Chennai and immediately on knowing the fact on 28.1.2002 about the dismissal of the Suit on 29.10.2001, the restoration Application was filed.

3. The said Application was resisted by the respondents by contending that on an earlier occasion the Suit was dismissed for default and the Suit was restored as per the order in I.A. No.27 of 1999 and thereafter an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed and the case was posted for final hearing on 29.10.2001 and on the said date neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared and therefore there is no bona fide in the said Application seeking restoration.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application, against which C.M.A. No.13 of 2003 was filed, which was also dismissed taking note of the dismissal of the Suit on earlier occasion which was restored subsequently. The Appellate Court further held that the Suit was of the year 1996 and observed that the Petition was filed only to drag on the proceeding.

5. The said orders rejecting the request for restoration is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that on 29.10.2001 the second petitioner, who was conducting the case could not appear due to the ill-health of his father, who was aged 75 years at that time and during the second and third week of October, 2001, he was busy with the Panchayat election work and therefore he could not contact his counsel to ascertain the date of hearing and as such there was communication gap and therefore he was unable to attend the Court on 29.10.2001. It is also stated in the ground that the second petitioner having been elected as Panchayat President, he took charge of the Thilagainathi Panchayat on 25.10.2001. It is further stated that originally the Suit was posted for trial on 22.10.2001 and the said date being Duserah holiday; the Trial Court posted the case to 29.10.2001, which was not noticed by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the non-appearance of the Petitioners on earlier occasion having been condoned by allowing the Petition for restoration, the said reason cannot be cited as a reason to reject the Petition for restoration and the Courts below relied on the above fact and refused to restore the Application even though the petitioners have stated genuine reasons.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have not proved their lack of knowledge of the posting of the case on 29.10.2001 and the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court are justified in dismissing the said Application for restoration.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Revision Petitioners as well as respondents.

9. The issue as to whether the Petition to restore the Suit, which was dismissed for non-appearance, can be rejected on the ground that on earlier occasion also the Suit was dismissed for default, which was restored, particularly when sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing is made out, came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision rep