Short Note : 1. Plaintiffs-applicants filed a suit (civil suit No. 50-B of 1972) in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Chhaterpur. It Was fixed for evidence on 20-8-1973. The plaintiffs remained absent and their counsel pleaded no instructions. The suit was dismissed under Order 9, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff No.2 Lachhiman Das then applied for restoration of the suit. He said that he was urgently needed by his counsel at Satna in connection with an Income-tax case. He, therefore, left for Satna on the evening of the 19th August, 1973, but when he returned, he found his suit No. 50-B of 1972 dismissed in default of appearance. 3. The Courts below have rejected the restoration application on two counts, (i) That Lachhman Das should have informed his counsel before he left for Satna and given instructions to seek an adjournment and (ii) that the other plaintiff Mathole sahu could attend the hearing. Held: The perusal of the record would show that the principal man who deals with the defendants in the matter of contract was Lachhman Das. Mathole and Lachhman Das are father and son. It is not usual to presume that father at his old age had left the business in the management of the son and though the father was made a party, it was the son who actually looked after the case. For ought we know, the plaintiff No.1 might to be ignorant of the date of hearing and the son left the station in the hope that the counsel would manage the case alright. 4. The question to ask is has Lachhman Das shown sufficient cause for his absence on 20-8-1973. If be left Chhatarpur for Satna on the evening of the 19th for a more important work, should he be penalised just because he forgot to inform the local counsel? And if he has shown good case for his non-appearance, there are authorities in his support which say that the suit could be restored for the benefit of all. (See: AIR 1919 Oudh 4, Bishambhar Nath v. Girdhari lal). Suit restored. Revision allowed.