Short Note : 1. The small cause suit was fixed for ex-parte evidence of the applicant On 30-7-1974. However, on that date due to the absence of plaintiff, the suit was dismissed in default. An application for restroration of the same was filed on the next day on the ground that the plaintiff's partner noted wrongly the date as 31-7-1974 instead of 30-7-1974 and thus, there was sufficient cause for his absence in the Court on 30-7-1974. None appeared on behalf of the opponents to oppose that application. However, the learned Small Cause Judge refused to restore the suit on the ground that the applicant had not proved that he wrongly noted the date as 31st July, and dismissed the same. Held: In the opinion of this Court, this revision deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the learned Small Cause Judge should not have refused to allow the application for restoration of the suit in a hyper technical manner. The application was filed on the very next day and there appears no reason to disbelieve the applicant's contention that by mistake he got the date noted as 31st July 1974 instead of 30th of July 1974. The learned Small Cause Judge, in these circumstances, should not have been so harsh, more so, when the case was fixed for ex parte evidence and the reason assigned by the applicant for his absence, being quite natural, was sufficient cause for his absence. Revision allowed.