JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 1941980 passed by the District Judge, Sitapur, dismissing the applicants' application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the dismissal order. The applicants' father, late Raja Bahadur Saxena, filed a suit as forma pauperis for his reinstatement in service and arrears due to him. The applicants were substituted after their father's death. It seems that on 2431980 the suit was fixed for hearing before the District Judge, Sitapur but this date was changed to 19th February, 1980 and the applicants' counsel was informed of the changed date and the counsel had also sent a letter to the applicants informing them about the change in the date. The letter is said to have not been received by the applicants. Their counsel did not appear in the case on 19th February, 1980. The reason was obvious. As no instructions were given to the counsel, he did not appear before the court. There is no presumption that the letter was sent by registered post and the applicants were informed of the changed date. The cause shown by the applicants was sufficient, as the letter was not received by them they could not instruct their counsel nor attend the court on 19th February, 1980. Under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure there was no reason to dismiss their application for recalling the dismissal order dated 19th February, 1980. The District Judge, Sitapur, should have allowed the applicants' application and he has wrongly dismissed the application. 2. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 1921980 and 1941980 passed by the District Judge, Sitapur are set aside. The District Judge is directed to restore the suit to its original number and decide the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Revision allowed.)