The application for restoration must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation, and the Court cannot extend the time of limitation by invoking inherent jurisdiction.

Bakhshish Kaur, J. - A suit filed by Devinder Pal Sehgal was dismissed in default on 24.8.1988 under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code). Thus, an application for the restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code was filed on 18.10.1988, which was allowed by the trial Court, by observing that the applicants-plaintiffs could not appear in the Court due to compelling reasons and circumstances beyond their control and their absence was not intentional.

2. The legality of the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the application was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Secondly, the application could not be allowed on the supposed grounds of "in the interest of justice". The impugned order, it is averred, is not only perverse but against the law and it has caused a failure of justice.

3. I have heard Shri. R.K. Chhiber, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chetan Mittal and Shri R.S. Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 respectively.

4. Earlier application dated 18.10.1988 under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code was dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 21.11.1994 and another application for its restoration was filed on 21.12.1994. The trial Court finding no merit in this application, dismissed it on 19.9.1995. Aggrieved by that order, a Civil revision No. 556 of 1996 was preferred by the plaintiff- petitioners in this Court and the same was allowed on August 27, 1996 by observing as under :-

"In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 19.9.1995 is partly set aside and the application dated 21.12.1994 for the restoration of the application dated 18.10.1988, which was dismissed on 21.11.1994, is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs, and now the parties are relegated to the position as it stood on 21.11.1994. Now, the trial Court would proceed to decide the application dated 18.10.1988, moved by the plaintiffs under Order 9 Rule 9, C.P.C., for the restoration of the suit for want of prosecution on 24.8.1988. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.9.1996.

5. The trial Court, after the case had been remitted to it, decided the application vide the impugned order, hence the present Civil Revision.

Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code reads as under :-

"Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfied the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit."

6. The requirement of this Rule is that the order of dismissal will be set aside only if the party is able to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for its/his non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing. Whether in the given case, the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent) had been able to show a sufficient cause for his non-appearance.

7. It is well-settled that "sufficient cause" in each case is a question of fact. In the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, the respondent has averred that the attorney of the plaintiff had deputed Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, to conduct their case. Unfortunately, on July 19/20, 1998 in the early hours of July 20, 1998, father of the counsel suffered heart problem. His father expired on August 13, 1988. Thus, non-appearance of the plaintiff or their authorised representative/counsel on July 20, 1998 was due to the compelling reasons and circumstances, which were beyond their control and the absence was not intentional. The plaintiffs are settled abroad at Thailand and they have appointed Gurdip Sin