JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a defendants revision petition against the judgment and order dated 31-1-1977 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the appeal against rejection of the restoration application by the learned trial court vide order dated 9-8-1976. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant but none appeared for opposite party in spite of due notice and I have also perused the record. 3. It was a case for partition of holding and the learned trial court without passing any preliminary decree ordered on 3-4-1976 that the lots were approved and decree be prepared accordingly and even such order on the order-sheet was not signed by the court. The usual initials of the presiding officer as on other dates are missing on the Hindi Fard-ahkam of 13-4-1976 and I have made a note of it on 23-8-1985 on that order sheet. Indeed, it was no order at all. Even so a restoration application was filed same day by the counsel for Rajveer Singh mentioning the letter giving reasons for absence of the party but this restoration was also rejected on 9-8-1976. 4. On top of it all is the final decree again ordered by the learned trial court on 20-7-1982, in spite of Boards order dated 13-5-1977 staying any finalisation of lots. A number of illegalities were committed by the learned trial court in this case. 5. Firstly no evidence was taken and no shares decided as preliminary decree. Secondly the script on order-sheet dated 3-4-1976 was taken as order by the learned trail court. Thirdly, the trial court did not consider the presence of the counsel and decided the case as ex parte on 3-4-1976. The running reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 lays down that no party is to suffer for the inaction or deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent. Here, the counsel was present and the learned trial court could not pass any ex parte order. The rejection of the learned trial court not pass any ex parte order. The rejection of the restoration was also not justified as the reason could not be said to be insufficient by the learned trial court or even the first appellate court. The facts are clear. The party was taking 2 month's leave from 9-4-1976 and wanted an adjournment for a few days. Reason was unnecessary cost to the party. The rejection of the restoration was also not justified as the reason could not be said to be insufficient by the learned trial court or even the first appellate court. The facts are clear. The party was taking 2 month's leave from 9-4-1976 and wanted an adjournment for a few days. Reason was unnecessary cost to the party. 6. No law lays down that cost of litigation cannot have any effect on the proceedings nor that the court must reject a request aimed at reducing cost of litigation. We must opt for a healthy justice and not a blind one. The learned trial court had no discretion or jurisdiction to be unreasonable and reject adjournment. 7. However in view of the script on the order-sheet of 3-4-1976 being no judicial order, the revision must succeed on this ground alone. The last illegality by the learned trial court was to pass order dated 20-7-1982 in the face of any stay order by the Board dated 13-6-1977. 8. In view of the above, the revision is allowed, the judgment and order dated 31-1-1977 is set aside, the first appeal and the restoration application shall be deemed allowed and the case restored to original number, the order by the learned trial court dated 20-7-1982 is also set aside, the order dated 3-4-1976 by the learned trial court is set aside and also deemed no judicial order, and the case is remanded to the learned trial court to frame issues, take evidence disregard any compromise not by all the parties to the case, decide and pass preliminary decree and then to proceed to get lots prepared and after due consideration and opportunity of hearing to pass final decree in accordance with law.