Short Note : 1. Briefly stated facts of this revision application are these the plaintiff non-applicants instituted a suit against the defendant-applicant in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Indore. On one of the dates for hearing of the suit the applicant remained absent and the suit was therefore, directed to be proceeded against exparte. The applicant submitted an application for setting aside of this order, but this application was dismissed for default. The applicant submitted an application for restoration of the application, but the same was also rejected by the impugned order. 2. The main ground urged by the applicant for restoration of his application for setting aside the ex-parte order was that he was a resident of a place twenty miles in the interior from Ujjain and that he could not contact his counsel at Indore in time and that there is sufficient cause for restoration of the said application. 3. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order has taken the view that as the applicant was represented in the trial Court by more than one counsel there was no sufficient cause for the non-appearance of all the counsel appearing for the applicant. With this view the application for restoration was rejected. Held: It is clear from the record of the lower Court that one of the applicant's counsel, Shri Sugandhi had suffered heart attack and that was assigned to be one of the reasons for the absence of the applicant's counsel. No doubt besides Shri Sugandhi, who suffered the heart attack, there were other counsel also who could appear for the applicant. But the reason assigned by the applicant was, in my opinion, sufficient for restoration of his application. For the hearing of such an application the learned trial Judge should not have taken such rigid view as has been taken in this case. Revision allowed.