JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a revision against the order passed by Sri S.K. Ahmed, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated July 10, 1973 in a restoration application filed on May 21, 1973 in Appeal No. 2 of 1971 under section 331(1) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 Marjad Singh and Shiroman Singh had filed a suit under section 229-B U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the revisions Asharfi Singh and others. The suit was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on September 27, 1971. Thereafter the plaintiff-opposite parties had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. This was dismissed in default on November 3, 1972. On the same date an application for restoration was moved by the counsel for the applicants stating that he could not hear the call as he was busy in the arguments of an other appeal. The court ordered for issue of notice to the respondent and thereafter as no objection hade been filed, restored the appeal on July 10, 1973. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the lower appellate court acted illegally and with material irregularity in restoring the appeal without satisfying if there was any sufficient cause to restore the appeal that the lower appellate court exercised jurisdiction illegally when there was no ground for restoration that the court filed to record reasons for satisfaction in restoring the appeal and that the court failed to exercise jurisdiction by not giving any notice to the revisionists. 5. Order XLI,Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:- "19. Readmission of appeal dismissed for default where an appeal is dismissed under rule 11. Sub-rule (2) or rule 17 or rule 18 the appellant may apply to the Appellate court for the readmission of the appeal and where it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause for appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing or from depositing the sum to be required by the court shall readmit the appeal on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit." 6. The learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to Mohammada v. Harnand Lal AIR 1937 Allahabad 262 in which it has been held that a finding of fact based upon an elaborate consideration of evidence, oral and documentary produced by both the parties is conclusive in second appeal and is not vitiated though the view taken by the first appellate court as to admissibility of a certain document is technically erroneous. This decision does not help the revisionists in the present case in any manner. 7. The next decision cited in Raja Ram v. Baij Nath 1965 R.D. 246 in which the following observations have been made. "Before an application for the restoration of the suit which had been dismissed in default is restored or before an application for the restoration of the restoration application if allowed it is the duty of the court to examine whether the reasons for the absence which resulted in the dismissal of the application, were sufficient or not. Without giving such a finding the order of the court below would not be legal merely on the ground that the application filed was within the prescribed period of limitation." 8. The third decision cited is Prahlad v. Sk. Adbul Rahman A.I.R 1966 Oris. 232 in which the following observations have been made: "Order 9, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code lays down that where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing the court may make an order that the suit be dismissed. The third decision cited is Prahlad v. Sk. Adbul Rahman A.I.R 1966 Oris. 232 in which the following observations have been made: "Order 9, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code lays down that where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing the court may make an order that the suit be dismissed. Order 9, Rule 4 acts that where a suit is dismissed under Rule 2 or Rule 3 the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside and if he satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his not paying the court fee and postal charges (if any) required within the time fixed before the issue of the summons or for his non-appearance as the case may be the court the court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceedings with the suit." "If the suit is dismissal under Order 9, Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing Order 9, Rule 9 prescribes that the plaintiff may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, Order 9, Rule 9, sub-rule(2) lays down that no order shall be made under this rule unless notice of application has been served on the opposite party." 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has on the other hand referred to Brij Lal v. Dua Ram Indian Cases 1912 No. XVII 292 in which it has been held that if an appeal is dismissed on account of both the appellant and respondent being absent on the day of hearing not notice to the respondent is necessary before passing an order of restoration of appeal. 10. Another decision cited by the learned counsel is Mst. Kalawati v. Pundit Daya Nand AIR 1937 Allahabad 362 in which it has been held that under Order 41, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code it is open to an appellant whose appeal has been dismissed for default to apply to the appellate court for the readmission of the appeal. If a court accepts the allegations contained in the restoration application it does not act illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. If a court accepts the allegations contained in the restoration application it does not act illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 11.The decisions Brij Lal v. Dua Ram Indian Cases 1912 No. XVII 292 and Mst. Kalawati v. Pundit Daya Nand AIR 1937 Allahabad 362 are fully applicable to the present case. It is noteworthy that the application for restoration was moved on the same day on which the order for dismissal of the appeal in default was passed. Thus there is no reason to disbelieve at all the version of the learned counsel for the appellant in the first appeal that he could not hear the call being busy in the arguments of other appeal. In the circumstances, sufficient ground was shown for the non-appearance at the time when the case was called and the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly allowed the restoration application. As a matter of fact the learned Additional Commissioner has been very prudent in issuing notice 'to the respondent and allowing restoration application after hearing arguments of both the parties. There is no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Commissioner. 12. I find no force in this revision and hereby dismiss it.