JUDGMENT

Bhavadasan, J, The plaintiff, who had her petition for restoration of the suit dismissed, is the appellant.

2. The suit was one for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. It is seen that the suit was listed for trial, the plaintiff was not present and therefore the suit was dismissed for default. Plaintiff filed I.A. 1187 of 2006 for restoration of the suit. The court below found no reasons to do so and accordingly dismissed the petition. The said order is assailed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that there was no justification in the court below dismissing the application for restoration. It was pointed out that the suit was listed for trial on 6.6.2006. On 3.6.2006 the FAO.303/2006. 2 defendant in the suit filed I.A. 1019 of 2006 seeking adjournment on the ground that the judgment in C.C.61 of 1996 had been taken up in revision before this court in Crl.R.P.3047 of 2005. Pointing out that the judgment in C.C. 61/1996, which forms the basis of the suit had not become final, the adjournment was sought. Counsel for the plaintiff made known this fact to the plaintiff. The plaintiff would say that he honestly believed that the matter would be ad