Ram Labhaya J.-This petition of revision arises out of an order for restoration of a suit which had been dismissed in default. [2] The suit was for recovery of a sum of BS. 8.690 by sale of the mortgaged property. It was instituted in 1944. The issues were framed in May 1945. The case came up for hearing on 17-4-1947. On that date, the counsel for the plain­tiff put in an application for adjournment on the ground of illness of the plaintiff. The application for adjournment was rejected and the suit was dismissed for default by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, A. V. D. The learned Judge observed in the order that the application for adjournment was supported by a medical certi­ficate and that on this basis another suit of the plaintiff had been adjourned on 11-4-1947. He, however, rejected the petition for adjournment on the ground that if he was ill even after 11 4-1947, he should have applied to have his evidence taken on commission. As he had not taken appropriate steps for the prosecution of the suit, he was held disentitled to the indul­gence claimed. The counsel for the plaintiff who had applied for adjournment retired from the case. The Court then dismissed it for de­fault. [3] Plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit on the ground that he was prevented by illness from attending the Court on the date the suit was dismissed. Mr. D. N. Hazarika, Sub-Judge, L. A. D., who succeeded Mr. U. K. Gohain, who had dismissed the suit for default, ordered its restoration on 6-7-1949 holding that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance. Defendants have applied for a revision of this order. [4] The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the suit was dismissed for plain­tiff's default. The plaintiff had the right to apply for restoration of the suit under o. 9, E. 9, Civil P. C., and the trial Court had juris­diction to restore the suit if sufficient cause for non-appearance was shown. He challenges the order on the strength of Baij Nath v. Eedar Nath, I. L. B. (1933) 1 Gal. 213: (A. I. B. (25) 1938 Cal. 74) which holds that "in an application lot restoration under 0. He challenges the order on the strength of Baij Nath v. Eedar Nath, I. L. B. (1933) 1 Gal. 213: (A. I. B. (25) 1938 Cal. 74) which holds that "in an application lot restoration under 0. 9, E. 9, the plaintiff must show some fact which was either not known to the Court when after refusing an ad­journment it dismissed the suit, or at least at that stage lacked satisfactory proof." In that case the plaintiff applied for the issue of a commission at a late stage. The learned Judge allowed a commission to issue on terms, but he made it clear that this was not to delay the hearing of the suit. When the suit was called on, the position was that the commission had not been executed and it was said that the plaintiffs were not responsible for this as the preparation of the necessary documents had been delayed in the office. The counsel for the plaintiffs applied for an adjournment in order that he may be in a position to tender the commission evidence after the commission had been executed. The adjournment was refused. Thereupon the learned counsel stated that he was not in a position to proceed. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The application for restoration was dismissed by Panckridge J. on the ground that the facts on which restoration was sought were all before the learned Judge who had dismissed the suit in default. There was no fresh cause for restoration; nor was there any other evidence. He, therefore, de­clined to restore the suit holding that in order that plaintiff should succeed in obtaining resto­ration, he must show some fact which was not known to the Court when it dismissed the suit 01 that it lacked satisfactory proof at that stage. [5] We do not think this case is of any avail to the petitioners. In this case, the learned Judge when rejecting the application for ad­journment and dismissing the suit for default did not decide the question of plaintiff's illness on that date. He assumed that if his illness continued after the llth April, he should have taken certain other steps for the prosecution of the case. The evidence which was adduced later in support of the application for restoration of the case was certainly not before him. He assumed that if his illness continued after the llth April, he should have taken certain other steps for the prosecution of the case. The evidence which was adduced later in support of the application for restoration of the case was certainly not before him. It was open to the Court even according to Baij Nath v. Kedar Nath, I. L. E. (1938) 1 Cal. 213: (A. I. R. (25) 1938 Gal. 74) to go into the ques­tion of plaintiff's illness and also to restore the suit if on fresh evidence being produced it could come to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for default or non-prosecution. It is ad­mitted that the evidence produced in support of the application for restoration was not before the learned Judge who had dismissed the suit for default. The learned Judge, therefore, in restoring the suit has not gone against the rule laid down in Baij Nath v. Kedar N-ath, i.L.B. (1938) 1 Cal. 213': (A. I. E. (25) 1938 Cal. 74). [6] We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The petition for revision is dismissed with coats. [7] Thadani Ag. C. J.-I agree. Revision dismissed,