A Plaintiff may be granted restoration of a suit dismissed for default if the Plaintiff can show sufficient cause for the non-appearance.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. Ray, J. - This appeal is by the Plaintiff filed under Clause (1) of the Letters Patent read with Rule 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 from the order of summary dismissal dated 24-4-1970 passed by Hon?ble Justice B.K. Patra In M.A. No. 67 of 1969.

2. Plaintiff filed M.S. No. 115 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack for recovery of about Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of a Purja (pronate) dated 6-10-1957 which had been executed in satisfaction of two earlier Purjas dated 1-1-1954 and 27-10-1954 for sums of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively.

3. The Defendants raised various pleas including the one that there was no passing of consideration under the suit hand note. The suit was posted to 19-3-1968 for hearing and it was dismissed for default of the Plaintiff in presence of the Defendants with costs.

4. On 17-4-1968, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151, CPC for restoration of the suit after setting aside the order of dismissal. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 1968. The Defendants resisted it and ultimately the said restoration petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the Plaintiff filed Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 1969 in this Court which was dismissed summarily by Hon?ble Justice B.K. Patra on 24-4.1970 in the following words:

Heard. Dismissed

5. A preliminary point was taken by the counsel for the Respondents regarding the scope of the Letters Patent appeal. It was contended that a Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal should normally accept the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge unless strong grounds are made out for differing from him. The scope of Letters Patent appeal has been considered by the Supreme Court and accepted by this Court in the case of Jagabandhu Senapati and Ors. v. Bhagu Senapati and Ors. ILR 1973 Cutt. 553. The following dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Kasi Viswanatham v. A. sivarama Krishnaya and Ors. C.A. No. 232 of 1961-D/I 1-1-1953, has been adopted in the decision of this Court:

A Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a first appeal to the High Court is not exactly equivalent to a second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC and therefore it cannot be held that a Letters Patent appeal of this kind can only lie on a question of law and not otherwise. The matter would have been different if the Letters Patent appeal was from a decision of a learned Single Judge in a second appeal to the High Court. In these circumstances it will be open to the High Court to review even findings of fact in a Letters Patent appeal from a first appeal heard by a learned Single Judge, though generally speaking the Letters Patent Bench would be slow to disturb concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below. But there is no doubt that in an appropriate case a Letters Patent Bench hearing an appeal from a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a first appeal heard by him is entitled to review even findings of fact. The contention of the Appellant therefore that the Letters Patent Bench was not in law entitled to reverse the concurrent findings of fact must be negatived.

There is, therefore no compulsive rule of law that the findings of the Single Judge cannot be reviewed in any circumference. The rule, however, is more appropriate in its application to a case where the Single Judge has rendered a judgment giving his reasons and findings. But where the Single Judge heard the appeal ex-parte and summarily dismissed it without disclosing as to what facts were confirmed by him and what reasons played on his mind in confirming the same, it would be an appropriate case for reviewing facts and circumstances appearing on record fully, because there is no other way of finding out if the learned Single Judge confirmed the findings of the trial Court after due consideration of the entire evidence and circumstances on record. We, therefore, proceed to revie