Short Note : 1. The plaintiff applicant had filed the suit of small cause nature in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class I, Indore, which was registered as small cause suit No. 603 of 1973. The case was fixed for final hearing on 1-11-74. As the defendant-non-applicant had remained absent the suit was already proceeding ex-parte against him. On 1-11-74 the plaintiff also remained absent from 11 a.m. to 12-05 p.m., when the case was called. Plaintiff's counsel Shri S.R. Jamindar appeared before the trial Court and prayed for time as he could not say why the plaintiff had remained absent. It appears that the said prayer was not accepted and the suit was dismissed in default. The plaintiff on the same day filed an application for restoration of the suit which was registered as small cause Misc. Case No. 152 of 74. That application was considered on 31-3-75 and dismissed on the ground that the applicant could not satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 1-11-74 when the case was called for hearing. Against the said order the applicant has come to this Court in revision. Held : It is clear from the record that the applicant had filed the application for restoration of the suit on the same day i.e., 1-11-74. It is also clear from the record that the suit was taken up by the trial Court in the earlier part of the day and was dismissed in default at 12-05 p.m. When the applicant's counsel had appeared before the trial Court and had prayed for time, the trial Court ought to have atleast waited till the close of the day before dismissing the suit in default. The applicant in his application as well as in his statement which he gave on oath has stated that on 1-11-74 his bahi was misplaced and some time was spent in making a search of it on account of which he became late and when he came to the Court at 12-30 p.m. he learnt that his suit was dismissed in default. As the application was made on the same day it cannot be said that the cause shown by the applicant for coming late in the Court was an after thought. 2. As the application was made on the same day it cannot be said that the cause shown by the applicant for coming late in the Court was an after thought. 2. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant ought to have been careful in making a search of his bahi before the Court time and in case it was not available he ought to have remained present in the Court in time and should have requested for an adjournment. To my mind, the said approach appears to be perverse. In case the applicant before coming to the Court took some time in searching the bahi and became late it could not be said that the applicant deliberately came late. When the Court below made hot haste in dismissing the suit in the earlier part of the day the application of the applicant for restoration of the suit which was presented on the same day ought not to have been dismissed on a superficial ground. Revision allowed.