Judgment Satya Brata Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against a judgment dated 13.9.1985 passed by Shree A.G. Dutta, 4th Additional District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 196 of 1978, whereby and whereunder, the said learned court reversed an order dated 5.8.1978 passed by Shree D. Kishku, 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, in Miscellaneous case No. 3 of 1975 and thus allowed an application filed by the opposite-parties under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of this case are not much in dispute. The suit filed by the opposite parties against the petitioners was dismissed for default on 6.2.1975. An application for restoration was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 6.3.1975. A copy of the said application has been marked as Exhibit A. upon the said application, Miscellaneous Case No. 2 or 1975 was registered. 3. On 7.3.1975 another application was filed for restoration of the said suit purported to be under Order IX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was, however, in effect and substance an application under Order IX Rule 9 thereof. In the said application, it was contended that the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default at the instance of plaintiff No. 4 who was enimically disposed of towards the plaintiff No. 1. 4. However, the petitioners here of did not file any objection to the said application. 5. In support of the said application one witness was examined who supported the case of the applicant opposite-party. 6. The said application dated 7.3.1975 gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1975. However, later on the aforementioned Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1975 was dismissed for default. 7. By an order dated 5.8.1978 Shree D. Kishku, 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna dismissed the said application. The opposite party preferred an appeal against the said order dated 5.8.1978 which was registered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 196 of 1978. 8. By the impugned order, the learned lower appellate court had allowed the said appeal and restored the suit to its original file. 9. Mr. Shree Nath Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, raised a very short question. 8. By the impugned order, the learned lower appellate court had allowed the said appeal and restored the suit to its original file. 9. Mr. Shree Nath Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, raised a very short question. According to the learned Counsel the learned lower appellate court misdirected himself in allowing the appeal in so far as it relied upon the evidence of A.W. 1 although he could not have examined himself in support of the application dated 7.3.1975. According to the learned Counsel as A.W. 1 did not make any pairive in the suit and made pairvi on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 only in the aforementioned miscellaneous case, he was not a competent witness to depose as to how and in what circumstances, the main suit was dismissed for default. The learned counsel, therefore, suggested that as the said A.W. 1 was not a competent witness to depose on behalf of the plaintiff opposite-party No. 1, the learned lower appellate court could not have relied upon his testiomony and acting on the basis thereof could not have set aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance in Vinod Kumar Arora V/s. Smt. Surjit Kaur. 10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, drew my attention paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment and submitted that as the statements made in application filed on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 were not controverted by the petitioner and thus it was not necessary for the plaintiff No. 1 to examine herself. According to the learned Counsel, even the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to controvert the statement made by A.W. 1. 11. True it is as suggested by Shree Singh that A.W. 1 might not have been a competent witness to depose on behalf of the plaintiff opposite-party No. 1 but in the instant case as noticed hereinbefore the petitioner hereof even did not controvert the allegations made by plaintiff No. 1 in her application for restoration of the suit. 12. In this circumstances, in my opinion, the learned lower appellate court cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the statements made by A.W. 1. 13. In Vinod Kumar Aroras case (supra). 12. In this circumstances, in my opinion, the learned lower appellate court cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the statements made by A.W. 1. 13. In Vinod Kumar Aroras case (supra). The Supreme Court while considering the decision of the High Court which did not lay any credence to the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller on the ground that their findings have been passed on surmises and conjectures and relevant pieces of evidence have been lost sight of by the said court. It is not the situation obtaining in this case as evidence has been adduced on behalf of plaintiff-opposite-party. 14. Further, is now a well settled principle of law that courts always lean in favour of the decision of a suit on merits. A party, however, negligent he may be, if he shows sufficient and good cause for his non-appearance on the day when the suit was dismissed for default, should be given an opportunity to fight out the case on merits. This being the position in law, in my opinion, even if in a case of interference by the petitioner, has been made out, I should not exercise my discretion under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. It is now well settled that the High Court should not exercise its revisional jurisdiction on only because it will be lawful to do so. Reference in this connection may be made in Major S.S. Khanna V/s. Brig F.J. Dillon, and in Brij Gopal Mathur V/s. Kishan Gopal Mathur. 16. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter in my opinion, there is no merit in this civil revision application, which is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and the circumstances of this case, there shad be no order as to costs.