JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court rejecting plaintiff/appellants application for restoration under order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. the plaintiff/appellant has approached this Court through the above mentioned first appeal from order. 2. In the application for recalling the order, dated 16.12.1978, the plaintiff had stated that she was wrongly informed 26.12.78, the date fixed in the case, therefore, she failed to appear on 16.12.78 and the case had been dismissed in default on that day. 3. The claim of the plaintiff/appellant has been contested by the defendant/respondent. Through the impugned order the trial court has dismissed the plaintiffs application on the ground that the plaintiff has not been able to substantiate her assertions about the wrong date given to her. The reason given by the Trial Court is that neither the diary, nor the affidavit of the clerk of the plaintiff has been filed to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff/appellant. The other reason given by the Trial Court is that the application for recalling the order was moved on 6.1.1979, hence the conduct of the plaintiff/appellant did not warrant to justify the truth of the allegations made by her and because of the conduct of the plaintiff/appellant the Trial Court has disbelieved the theory put forward by the plaintiff/appellant and has rejected the application for recalling the order dated 16.12.1978. 4. None appears for the respondent we have heard Sri Radhey Shyam counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. We have examined the record of this case. On our examination of the record, we find that on 14.9.1979 in the order sheet, the Trial Court directed that summons for filing written statement on 9.12.1978 and. for issues 16.12.1978 be issued. The summon on the record, paper no.43 Kha, indicates that only 9.12.1978 was mentioned for filing written statement. In such a circumstance we think that the Trial Court has acted illegally in dismissing the suit on 16.12.1978 without adverting to the question whether its order dated 14.9.1978 had been implemented. 5. The ground given by the Trial Court that the plaintiff/ appellant did not move the application for recalling the order dated 16.12.1978 immediately, therefore, her theory was not believable. We think that the Trial Court manifestly erred in this regard. The plaintiff/appellant had 30 days time to file the application for recalling the order dated 16.12.1978. 5. The ground given by the Trial Court that the plaintiff/ appellant did not move the application for recalling the order dated 16.12.1978 immediately, therefore, her theory was not believable. We think that the Trial Court manifestly erred in this regard. The plaintiff/appellant had 30 days time to file the application for recalling the order dated 16.12.1978. When the plaintiff/ appellant had moved the application on 6.1.1979 no adverse inference should have been drawn against the plaintiff/appellant The third ground given by the Trial Court in rejecting plaintiff-appellants version is that neither the affidavit of any clerk has been filed nor the diary has been produced by the plaintiff-appellant to substantiate her theory. It would be necessary to observe here that if the Trial Court had looked to its order dated 14.9.1978, the theory set up by the plaintiff could not have been easily disbelieved. The date mentioned in the order dated 14.9.1978 on the order-sheet does throw doubt that the date for issues could be read as 26.12.1978. However, since the date of issues has not been mentioned in the summon (paper No.43 Kha. on record), we think that the Court is also responsible for not intimating the date, of issues to the plaintiff-appellant. It is well known by now that no body should suffer at the hands of the Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have a feeling that the Trial Court has not properly applied its mind to the order dated 14.9.1978 mentioned in the order-sheet of this case. In our opinion the Trial Court illegally and wrongly disbelieved the explanation given by the plaintiff for her absence on 16.12.1978 without adverting itself to the order dated 14.9.1978 and the summon which is paper No.43 Kha on record. There is documentary and circumstantial evidence to substantiate at the plaintiffs explanation for her absence on 16.12.1978 (date of issues)despite the plaintiffs failure to file affidavit of the clerk and to produce diary. There is other evidence to substantiate the plaintiffs explanation for her absence on 16.12.1978 which have been overlooked by the Trial Court. Therefore, the order dated 16.12.1978 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for default deserves to be recalled and the suit deserves to be restored to its original number. 6. For the forgoing discussions, we think that this appeal has force and it deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the order dated 16.12.1978 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for default deserves to be recalled and the suit deserves to be restored to its original number. 6. For the forgoing discussions, we think that this appeal has force and it deserves to be allowed. Nobody should be condemned without having been afforded a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his or her claim. In the present case we think that if the impugned order is maintained, the plaintiff-appellant shall have no remedy and she would stand condemned without having reasonable opportunity of putting forward her claim. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 14.4.1979 and recall its order dated 16.12.1978 dismissing the plaintiffs suit for default. We restore the suit to its original number and direct the Trial Court to proceed with the case after giving due information to the parties hereafter. The office shall send the record of the Trial Court forthwith, so that the Trial Court may take special care to deal with this case after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties. 7. We make no order as to costs.