Heard Mr. A.R.Bannerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.M.Mahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party. This is an application under Rule 6 of Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over the District Council Court) Order, 1954 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19th June, 1991 passed by Shri T. Diengdoh, Magistrate First Class and Presiding Officer of Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Shillong. By the order dated 2,1.8.91 passed by this Court a notice of motion was issued. This Court also called for, the records. Petitioner's case is that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit in the Court of Shri T. Diengdoh, Magistrate, first Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong for declaration of right title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction against the petitioner and 6 other defen­dants. The petitioner was defendant No. 6 in the said suit. After receipt of the summons, the petitioner as defendant appeared in the suit and thereafter filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The suit was fixed on 12.3.91 for hearing. On that date plaintiff filed attendance, but neither she nor her counsel was present at the time when the suit was taken up for hearing. No other steps was also taken. As the plaintiff did not appear at the time when the suit was called upon for heating the Court dismissed the suit for default. After dismissal of the suit for default, the opposite party filed an appli­cation for restoration of the suit. This petition was filed by the opposite party plaintiff invoking the spirit of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In her petition, the plaintiff stated that her Advocate could not appear in Court at the time when the suit was called upon for hearing due to the bereavement in the family of his neighbour. Her petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 1987. In her petition, opposite party specifi­cally stated the said facts. Besides, she also stated that she was not called upon personally at the time when the suit was taken up for hearing. She further stated that failure of her Advocate to appear in the suit at the time when it was called upon for hearing was not intentional. In her petition, opposite party specifi­cally stated the said facts. Besides, she also stated that she was not called upon personally at the time when the suit was taken up for hearing. She further stated that failure of her Advocate to appear in the suit at the time when it was called upon for hearing was not intentional. According to the opposite party, she and her Advocate were prevented from appearing in the Court for sufficient cause. This application was supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the con­cerned Advocate for the opposite party who was actually incharge of the case. Against the petition filed by the opposite party for restoration of the suit, the petitioner had filed an objection denying the averments made in the petition, more specifically, about the death of neighbour of the plaintiff's Advocate. In the objection, the petitioner also stated that there was another Advocate who filed objection against the alleged violation of injunction on that very day. Plaintiff was also present. That being so according to the petitioner there was no reason why opposite party could not proceed with the case on the date of hearing. This objection was not supported by an affidavit. How­ever, it was verified as per procedure prescribed. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Court below restored the suit to file without there being actual evidence on record. According to him, this is directly against the provision of Rule 1 of Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Banerjee, further submits that without there being any order from the Court to treat the affidavit as evidence, the Court cannot take into consi­deration of the statement made in the petition which is only supported by an affidavit. Mr. Banerjee further submits there was no decision by the Court below that the suit was restored on the ground that the petitioner's counsel could not appear on the date fixed due to the death of member of the family of the neighbour of the Advocate of the petitioner and therefore, there was no ground for restoration of the suit. According to him decision to restore the suit was not the actual decision, but a purported decision. He further submits that there being no sufficient cause for restoration of a suit, the Court below was not correct in restoring the suit to file. Mr. According to him decision to restore the suit was not the actual decision, but a purported decision. He further submits that there being no sufficient cause for restoration of a suit, the Court below was not correct in restoring the suit to file. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that although the provision of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in the instant case in view of the fact that it is a case filed under the provision of Administration of Justice (Khasi-Jayantia Hills) Rules, 1953. Under this Rules only the spirit of Civil Procedure Code applies, detail technicality should not be followed while deciding the matter. Mr. Mahanta, also submits that after filing the petition when the matter was taken up for restoration of the suit, the petitioner never raised any objection which only go to show that the petitioner actually did not want the person to be cross-examined or the evidence to be adduced. Mr. Banerjee, fairly submits that there is nothing to show from the record that any objection was raised before the Court below in this regard. It is true that the entire provision of Civil Procedure Code does not apply in the present case, only the spirit is applied then also from the reading of Rule 9 of Order 9 does not show that before allowing a petition evidence is to be recorded for restoration. The requirement of Rule 9 of Order 9 is that an application should be submitted to the Court and if the Court is satisfied on such application that the petitioner was prevented from appearing in Court for sufficient reasons, the Court has power to restore the suit. On perusal of the petition supported by an affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner was prevented from appearing in Court for sufficient cause inasmuch as the death of a member of neighbour family of the Advocate concerned, be a sufficient cause for not appearing before the Court on the date fixed. Learned Court below was satisfied that the opposite party was prevented from appearing in Court on the date fixed for sufficient cause. The satisfaction of the Court below was based on material facts and this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of the learned Court below. The other submissions made by Mr. Learned Court below was satisfied that the opposite party was prevented from appearing in Court on the date fixed for sufficient cause. The satisfaction of the Court below was based on material facts and this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of the learned Court below. The other submissions made by Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner also have no force in my opinion. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Court below invoking the revisional power of this Court. I therefore, dismiss the petition. No costs.