Judgment :- Defendant is petitioner herein. Respondent herein filed O.S.No.37 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Sankari, based on a promissory note, dated 16th February, 1969 for a sum of Rs.3000. He claimed that on 18th December, 1970, a part payment of Rs.50 having been made and defendant having endorsed the suit promissory note the suit filed on 23rd December, 1974 was well within time. 2. Defendant admitted the execution of promissory note but claimed that the alleged endorsement, dated 18th December,1979 was a forgery. It appears that the suit was posted to 11th December, 1980 for getting the report of the expert on the allegation of forgery made and the suit was posted again to 15th December, 1980 for trial. On that date, the defendant’s counsel was present but as defendant had not received letter about the hearing date, he was absent; and defendant also was called absent and in spite of request made by both counsel for adjournment, the court proceeded to dismiss the suit on 15th December, 1980 without costs. Hence petitioner filed I.A.No.156 of 1981 for restoring the suit narrating the reasons for his non-appearance with formal counter denying every claim made by the defendant-petitioner. 3. As defendant failed to appear for the hearing of the application, it was dismissed, and, therefore, he filed I.A.No. 1279 of 1982 to restore the I.A. which was dismissed on 5th July, 1982. He stated that he had undergone an eye operation and could not be present. 4. After restoring the application in I.A.No.504 of 1981, the court below had restored the suit by stating as follows: Taking into account spirit revealed from the notes paper dated 15th December, 1980 it is seen that the suit was dismissed only for purposes of statistics and furthermore it is always desirable to dispose of the suit on merits and that too when the petitioner claimed that he has a good case in his favour. In the circumstances, I feel that the claim of the petitioner is just and reasonable and because of his absence on 15th December, 1980 he may be imposed with some costs; with this observation I answer this point in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff." Aggrieved against this order, this revision petition is preferred. 5. In the circumstances, I feel that the claim of the petitioner is just and reasonable and because of his absence on 15th December, 1980 he may be imposed with some costs; with this observation I answer this point in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff." Aggrieved against this order, this revision petition is preferred. 5. It is the contention of learned Counsel for defendant-petitioner that, when plaintiff was unable to establish any one of the reasons put forth for restoring the suit, the court below on its own, proceeded on the basis that the dismissal was for statistical reasons, and hence this has resulted in an illegal order being passed. Learned Counsel for plaintiff respondent submits that, for the first time, the suit having been posted for trial, and the expert evidence having taken a long time to be received, the reference made by Court below to ‘statistical purpose’ could have no relevance or consequence, and as the primordial reason which prevailed on the Court below was to hear the matter on merits, and particularly when defendant also was absent on 15th December, 1980, the Court below was in order in restoring the suit. 6. The portion above extracted alone forms the reasons given by Court below for restoring the suit. None of the reasons stated by defendant for his absence had ever been considered. Practically, there was no application of mind to the nature of pleas raised by him for restoring the suit. He had never pleaded that the suit has been dismissed for ‘statistical purposes.’ 7. When both Counsel were asked to clarify as to what the Court below had meant by ‘statistical purpose’ they felt shy to say anything and stated that it is only the Presiding Officer who could explain what had happened. He has already given a finding that he was able to make out the spirit of the order and that it was only for ‘statistical purpose’ this suit had been dismissed. If this is accepted, it would lead to tragedies to litigants, if their valuable claims are dismissed and disposed of in a summary manner merely because the Presiding Officer wants to create an impressive record of his performance. It is incomprehensible that a Judicial Officer could think of dismissing a suit claim, so that he could have a disposal, unmindful of the consequences of his action. It is incomprehensible that a Judicial Officer could think of dismissing a suit claim, so that he could have a disposal, unmindful of the consequences of his action. The Court below having given a finding to this effect, it shows that there are Judicial Officers in the subordinate Judiciary who dismiss suits merely to’ bring into existence a false claim about their disposal. This is a nefarious practice and highly detrimental to valuable claims of litigants who throng to Courts in large numbers; expecting a different treatment in the Judiciary from what they are experiencing elsewhere. Statistical figures being built up for securing grants or concessions or other facilities, cannot be imbibed as a permissible practice, when the duty cast on the Judicial Officer is to dispose of matters on their merits and not for purposes of creating statistical records regarding disposal of cases in a court. By such disposal, there is a great risk involved, because, by chance, if the succeeding Judicial Officer is unaware of the mischief of dereliction of duty committed by his predecessor, it is only the litigant who would suffer the consequences. The very fact that, in the order itself, the learned Judge had recognised the existence of such manner of disposal, would show that, such a practice is going on in the subordinate judiciary. It is a sad reflection on subordinate courts that this sort of dismissal for ‘statistical purposes’ could find judicial recognition and form a ground for passing orders. Judicial personnel can ill-afford to indulge in practices which are obnoxious and highly detrimental to litigant public Dishonest practices by judicial personnel would shake the confidence of the people in the Judiciary. Such dishonest act can never form the basis for passing an order by Courts. 8. Every judicial officer will have to act with a deep sense of conscience and firm conviction in fair play and justice. If any instance of suit being dismissed for ‘statistical purposes’ comes to the konwledge of this court, it would result instern action being taken, so that this perncious practice is unknown to judicial functioning. Therefore, the matter is now remanded to the Court below for disposing of the application on merits of the claims made by plaintiff, which ought to have done. Hence, revision petition is allowed. No costs.