( 1 ) BY an order dated 18-4-1996 passed in Appeal No. 247 of 1989 by Additional District Judge (VII) Court, Bijnor, the appeal was dismissed, for default. An application under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed. By an order dated 18-3-1998 the said application was dismissed. It is against this order the present writ petition has been filed.

( 2 ) SRI N. C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that the impugned order is wholly perverse and could not have been passed, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has led me through the records of the case.

( 3 ) SRI M. S. Haq, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the contention of Sri N. C. Rajvanshi. According to him the petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance so as to enable the Court to restore the appeal. According to him writ jurisdiction can be invoked by a person who comes with unclean hand. Unless the petitioner comes with clean hands he is not entitled to any relief. He also contends that the order impugned is concluded by finding of fact which this Court cannot interfere in exercise of writ juris