JUDGMENT : 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal, which purports to be brought against an order rejecting his application to set aside the dismissal of his suit for non-appearance. It appears that the suit in question was set down for hearing on 2nd January 1914. The plaintiff had not appeared when the suit was called on, and it was accordingly dismissed. We may take it that the plaintiff presented himself in Court later on the same day. In applying under O. 9, R. 9 of the CPC, for restoration of the suit, the plaintiff put in an affidavit explaining that he had been accidentally delayed on his way to the Court. With reference to this affidavit the Sub-ordinate Judge thinks that it does not afford sufficient reason for the plaintiff's failure to be present when the suit was called on for hearing. It appears however that there was some discussion before the Court, and that the defendants informed the Court that they would have no objection to the granting of the plaintiff's application, provided each set of the defendants were paid adequate damages on account of costs incurred to date. Upon this an order was passed directing the plaintiff to pay, within one week, the sum of Rs. 250 to each of the four sets of defendants, and providing that in the event of his failing to do this the application to have the suit restored should stand dismissed. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. We have ourselves referred to a reported case of this Court, namely that of Jagarnath Sahi v. Kamta Prasad , A.I.R. 1914 All. 55 : 36 All. 77 : 23 I.C. 138.. The facts of that case were not precisely on all fours with those now before us; but an opinion was expressed as to the proper form with in an order in a case like the present should take. According to this view, the proper order for the Court below to have passed would have been one simply directing the plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,000 in Court within a week, and reserving the passing of any final order on his application until the prescribed period had expired. According to this view, the proper order for the Court below to have passed would have been one simply directing the plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,000 in Court within a week, and reserving the passing of any final order on his application until the prescribed period had expired. Whether this be so or not, it is clear to us in the present case that the Court below proceeded to pass an order which was intended to, and did in fact, completely dispose of the application for restoration of suit. It provided that in a certain event the application should be allowed, and in a certain event it should stand dismissed. The present appeal has been brought admittedly after the second of these events had occurred and consequently after the order passed by the Court below had produced its effect of dismissing the plaintiff's application. On this ground we hold that an appeal lies. 2. Having considered the case on the merits we desire to point out that, if the learned Sub-ordinate Judge was satisfied that the plaintiff had failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance he might thereupon have dismissed his application, and it is probable in that case that we should not have interfered. As matters stand the Court passed an order, based in part on the admission of the defendants themselves that they were prepared to consent to the restoration of the suit on payment of adequate damages. We think we are entitled to consider in appeal, and it is therefore our duty to consider, whether the damages allowed by the Court below were adequate or grossly excessive. 3. We should be prepared to allow a considerable margin of discretion to Sub-ordinate dinate Courts in a case like the present; but having looked into the matter it appears to us, firstly, that the sum ordered to be paid as damage? was at least double the sum to which the defendants could make out any reasonable claim; and, secondly, that the period of seven days allowed for payment was exceedingly short. In fact the Court below seems to have taken away with one hand what it purported to give with the other. was at least double the sum to which the defendants could make out any reasonable claim; and, secondly, that the period of seven days allowed for payment was exceedingly short. In fact the Court below seems to have taken away with one hand what it purported to give with the other. We therefore so far modify the order of the Court below that with substitute for it an order admitting the plaintiff's application for restoration of his suit, subject to his paying into the Court below by 2nd December 1914 the sum of Rs. 125 as costs on account of each of the four sets of defendants, that is to say, a total sum of Rs. 500. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the suit.