JUDGMENT

The instant revision petition is directed against order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, whereby application of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) for restoration of the suit has been allowed.

2. It appears that respondent No.1/plaintiff Bank had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,44,945.80 against the petitioners and proforma respondents before the learned trial court. It also appears that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff bank stopped appearing in the case and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.08.2014.

3. The plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit before the trial court on 29th March, 2016, on the ground that the counsel for the plaintiff bank had wrongly diarized the date of hearing in his records, as a result of which he could not appear on the date of hearing. It was also averred in the application that the counsel for the plaintiff was not correctly informed by his associate about the court proceedings, as a result of which he remained ignorant about the same. In the month of December, 2015, counsel for the plaintiff is stated to have acquired the knowledge