The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to advance the cause of justice and the requirement to consider sufficiency of grounds for restoration of the suit, along with the need for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner is aggrieved of the orders dated 07.05.2019 and 19.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jagraon.

2. Vide order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagraon, the suit was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC for non-appearance of the plaintiff as well as her counsel. Vide order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jagraon, the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the civil suit was also dismissed. Both the said orders have been assailed in the present revision petition.

3. Perusal of the record would show that Civil Suit No.505 dated 20.09.2008 was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners to the extent of 1/3rd composite share i.e. 1/6th share each of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint. The suit was registered on transfer on 29.05.2014 and the same was adjourned for 19.07.2014. On 19.07.2014, amended title to the suit was filed and the case was adjourned to 20.08.2014 for evidence of the plaintiffs at their own responsibilities. On 20.08.2014, the case was further adjourned to 05.09.2014 for the purpose already fixed because the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 05.09.2014, there was no evidence available on behalf of the plaintiffs and the case was further adjourned to 09.10.2014 for evidence of the plaintiffs at their own responsibilities.

4. Plaintiff No.1 Varinder Kaur was transposed as defendant vide order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagraon. Perusal of the file, brought this fact to the knowledge of the Court and, therefore, before proceeding in the case, the Court thought it appropriate to issue notice to Varinder Kaur as defendant No.5 for 15.11.2014. On 15.11.2014, service upon defendant No.5 was not effected and the case was further adjourned to 19.11.2014. On 19.11.2014, when the case was fixed for service of defendant No.5, none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. At about 3.55 p.m., the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC vide the aforesaid impugned order.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 28 days, as the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed after 58 days from the dismissal of the suit in default.

6. Petitioner pleaded in the application that she is a Senior Deputy Advocate General in the office of Advocate General, Punjab in the High Court. She was busy with her official work on 19.11.2014 and could not attend the case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner namely Sh. A.K. Attraya had sustained fracture in his left iliac blade and remained hospitalized and bed ridden. The Advocate still uses walk-aid to walk and, therefore, he also could not appear in the case when it was called on 19.11.2014. With this background the application was filed along with prayer for condonation of delay. The application was supported with an affidavit of the petitioner.

7. The application was opposed by respondent No.1. The trial Court framed the necessary issues in the context of sufficiency of grounds for restoration of the suit. The petitioner sought restoration of the suit on the following grounds:-

"a) The absence of the applicant and her counsel on the last date of hearing i.e. 19.11.2014 was not intentional or willful, but was rather for the reasons stated in para no.2 above.

b) It is in the interests of justice to restore the suit and to proceed further with the trial of the case from the same stage as at which it was pending at the time of dismissed in default.

c) The plaintiff/applicant learnt about the order of the dismissal of the suit only one day prior to filing the present application, when she inquired about the status of the case from her counsel, who has himself was not aware of the order of dismissal of