The court should make all endeavours to decide the civil suit/civil appeal, or for that matter, any judicial proceedings on merit and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.

K.K. Srivastava, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 10.4.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide which he has dismissed an application of the petitioner for restoration of civil appeal which was dismissed for default of the petitioner on 5.12.1995. A civil suit No. 902 was instituted in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Malerkotla on 13.5.1991 by respondent Ram Nath against the revisionist Surinder Kumar and Mohan Lal, both sons of Ram Nath aforesaid for the relief of mandatory injunction. The said civil suit was decreed with cost and the defendants, namely, Surinder Kumar revisionist and Mohan Lal were directed to vacate the house involved in the said suit and to deliver its vacant possession to Ram Nath, plaintiff-respondent within one month from the date of the decree. Surinder Kumar preferred Civil Appeal No. 106 dated 3.10.1994 in the Court of District Judge, Sangrur which was transferred to the Court of Shri B.R. Bansal, Additional District Judge, Sangrur for disposal. The civil appeal came up for hearing on 5.12.1995 when Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate represented the appellant Surinder Kumar (revisionist) and pleaded no instructions on behalf of appellant Surinder Kumar. The learned Additional District Judge thereafter dismissed the appeal for want of instructions and ordered the file to be consigned to the record room. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, a copy of which has been placed on record, reads as under :-

"This appeal received by transfer. It be registered. Sh. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant pleads no instructions on behalf of the appellant nor the appellant has come present and as such the appeal is dismissed for want of instructions. File be consigned to the record. Lower Court records be sent back.

Announced.

Dated 5.12.1995

Sd/-

(B.R. Bansal)

Additional District Judge,

Sangrur"

2. Surinder Kumar petitioner on coming to know of the said order dismissing the civil appeal for want of instructions moved Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 22.1.1997 praying for setting aside of the said order and for restoring civil appeal for hearing on merit. The civil misc. aforesaid came up for hearing before Shri Pritam Singh, Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 10.4.1997 and the same was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 10.4.1997 dismissing the application for restoration of the civil appeal, Surinder Kumar has filed the civil revision.

3. Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent Ram Nath put in appearance through his counsel Shri Baljit Puri, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 was, however, a proforma respondent being a co-defendant and the service of notice on him was dispensed with by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.5.1997.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and have perused the impugned orders carefully.

5. Mr. Singla, learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the civil appeal came up for hearing on 5.12.1995 when the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions, ought to have issued notice to the appellant and he could not dismiss the appeal for want of instructions. He has further contended that the appellant, who is the revisionist here, had engaged his counsel and the said counsel Shri R.K. Jain was representing him before the Appellate Court. The revisionist himself had no notice of the actual date of hearing and he was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 12.5.1995 in the Court of Shri R.B. Bansal, Additional District Judge, Sangrur. He has further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri Pritam Singh fell in error in not appreciating this ground urged before him on behalf of the petitioner and committed error in law in holding that no fresh notice was required to be issued to the appellant by the Court and there wa