An affidavit is not admissible as evidence unless the court specifically orders that a particular fact or facts be proved by affidavit under Order 19, Rule 1 CPC.

1. On 1st April, 1942, the State of Punjab obtained a money-decree for Rs. 2661.15 paise against Tilak Ram and Sons of Ludhiana. This decree was confirmed by this Court in Second appeal on 13th February, 1962. Thereafter, the decree-holder took out execution on 1st May, 1964. The execution application was dismissed in default on account of the non-appearance of the decree-holder on 5th October, 1968. The decree-holder on 8th October, 1968, filed a restoration application under Order 9, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure. Notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtor for 17th May, 1969. On that date the said application was also dismissed in default on account of the non-appearance of the decree holder and it was stated that the process-fee had not been filed by the decree-holder for effecting service on the judgment-debtor. On 19th May, 1969, another application under Order 9, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, was made for the restoration of the application dated 8th October, 1968, which had been dismissed in default on 17th May, 1969. It was stated therein that the restoration application was not listed in the cause list for 17th May, 1969. Maharaj Krishan, a Clerk of the Government Pleader, Ludhiana, then contacted the Ahlmad and the Reader of the Court on behalf of the decree-holder for putting up the said application before the Court. They replied that the file would be traced and the case would then be fixed for 7th June, 1969, for service on the judgment-debtor. On 19th May, 1969, Maharaj Kishan contacted the Reader and Ahlmad of the Court to find out the next dated fixed in the case and while doing so, he came to know that the application had been dismissed in default on 17th May, 1969. The process-fee had been paid within time on 24th March, 1969. Under these circumstances it was prayed that the said application be restored.

2. This application was contested by the judgment-debtor was dismissed by the trial Court, which held that though the said application was within time, but there was no sufficient cause for its restoration.

3. When the matter went in appeal before the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Ludhiana, he reversed the finding of the trial Court on the second issue framed in the case, namely, whether there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the application. He came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the said application. The finding on the other point, namely, whether the application was within time or not, was not challenged before the learned Judge. As a result, he accepted the appeal and restored the said application. Against the order, the present revision petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor.

4. The only argument urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence on the record in support of the finding of the lower Appellate Court that there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the application. It was conceded that there was the affidavit of Maharaj Krishan filed in support of the application for restoration and except that there was no other evidence, which would form the basis of the finding given by the learned Additional District Judge. He, therefore, contends that the said finding be reversed.

5. The factual position in the instant case is, that in para No. 2 of the restoration application, it was mentioned that the said application was supported by the affidavit of Maharaj Krishna, Clerk of the Government Pleader, Ludhiana, and that it was not listed in the cause-list for 17th May, 1969. There are on the record two replies given by the judgment-debtor-petitioner to the application for restoration. The first is dated 17th July, 1969, in the heading of which it is mentioned "Written reply of Judgment Debtor Tilak Ram Chaudhri--to the application dated 19th May, 1969, of the Punjab State. "In paragraph 2 thereof, it was stated "Denied for want of knowledge". It may be stated that this reply was