Short Note : 1. The trial Court was of the opinion that when the plaintiff non-applicant could come to Ashoknagar on that date and attend the office of the Sub Registrar in respect of execution and registration of the document, he could have very well come to the civil Court also and attended the proceedings in the suit. Under these circumstances, the trial Court came to the conclusion that no sufficient cause was established and, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for restoration of the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court after due appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not negligent in prosecuting his case. He had taken all steps to ensure the attendance of his witnesses He also engaged a counsel. The lower appellate Court further observed that even if the plaintiff was not present, the counsel should have taken care to represent him. Under these circumstances, even if the plaintiff did come to Ashoknagar on that date and went away due to the illness he was not liable to be penalised to the extent so as to deprive him of his valuable right to prosecute his claim in respect of sufficiently valuable immovable property. The lower appellate Court was however, of the opinion that imposition of costs of Rs. 300 would compensate the inconvenience caused to the defendants and that the suit was liable to be restored. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate Court directed restoration of the suit and also mentioned that this was being done under section 151 CPC. 2. Held: In my opinion, it is true that there was no necessity for mentioning the provisions of section 151 CPC. while directing restoration of the suit. Once the lower appellate Court was satisfied that the plaintiff was not negligent and that he had shown sufficient diligence in prosecuting his case, the suit could have been restored even under the provisions of Order 9, rule 9 CPC. It may be that the lower appellate Court might have taken an erroneous view on facts or in law, but in any case the order impugned cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. The order impugned is not open to interference merely for the reason that the lower appellate Court happened to rely on section 151 CPC. It may be that the lower appellate Court might have taken an erroneous view on facts or in law, but in any case the order impugned cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. The order impugned is not open to interference merely for the reason that the lower appellate Court happened to rely on section 151 CPC. also. What is to be seen is whether the Court was satisfied about the sufficiency of cause in the context that the plaintiff had been diligent in prosecuting his case. It is true that evidence about sufficient cause is not much convincing but, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the other already made by the lower appellate Court is called for by invoking the revisional Jurisdiction of this Court. Revision dismissed.