Short Note : Plaintiff filed a suit under Order 21, rule 63, C.P.C. for a declaration that certain property attached was not liable to be sold in execution. The suit was contested and when the case was fixed for evidence on 10-12-1970, it was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on 7-1-1971 under Order 9, rule 9 CPC, alleging that Rambilas, who was conversant with the facts of the case was down with paralysis and other ailments and, therefore, could not contract his counsel and, on the date of bearing had sent his nephew Tejkaran to the Court, but the suit was dismissed by the time he reached there. The trial Court refused to restore the suit but on appeal being filed, the same was allowed. It was urged on behalf of defendant-applicant that the plaintiff had not led any satisfactory and convincing evidence to prove that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance in the Court and that in absence of any affidavit in support of the application and in absence of any medical evidence to prove that in fact Rambilas was unable to attend the Court due to his ailment, there was no justification for restoration of the suit. Held : It is true that the plaintiff in the present case has not examined any doctor. However, it is clear from the statements of Rambilas, his nephew Tejkaran and his son Vijaykaran, who himself is a doctor, that Rambilas was then actually suffering from paralysis. Even the applicant in his statement has admitted this fact though he contended that at the relevant time Rambilas was quite fit and able to move out so that though he was a resident of Indore, he could attend the Court at how where the case was then being conducted. However, the learned lower Appellate Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that a case of sufficient cause has been made out by the plaintiff for his absence. The discretion exercised by it in arriving at the said conclusion cannot be said to be perverse. However, the learned lower Appellate Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that a case of sufficient cause has been made out by the plaintiff for his absence. The discretion exercised by it in arriving at the said conclusion cannot be said to be perverse. The provisions of Order 9, CPC are never meant to be penal provisions and it is only in clear cases of grave negligence and misconduct that a party should be deprived of the opportunity of having satisfactory disposal of the case which can only be done when both parties have full opportunity of p1acing their cases before the Court. In the absence of any clear motive for the plaintiff to have deliberately absented himself from the Court on the date fixed for hearing of the case, the code should not be too strictly applied to deny justice to the party unless the Court is satisfied that the party had a clear motive for his non-appearance and he or she deliberately remained absent to achieve that motive. Thus in the present case, the plaintiff having made out a case of sufficient cause for his non-appearance, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Revision dismissed.