B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the applicants on 16-10-92 for restoring their main C. R. A. No. 1541 of 1980. which was dismissed for default by an order dated 15-10-92. On 21 the learned advocate Shri S. K Zeveri for the application has sworn his affidavit in this Application. The learned advocate filed an urgent note on 29-10-93 by addressing the Registrar of this Court to direct the office to place it on 1 for orders. However the office has placed this Application for orders before me today. ( 2 ) THE learned advocate Shri S. K. Zaveri for the applicants submitted that the main C. R. A. was fixed for hearing on 14-10-92 but it could not be taken up for hearing by the court on that day and the same was adjourned to 15-10-92 and on that day the learned advocate Shri S. K. Zaveri had no personal knowledge about the matter being placed this court at 2. 45 P. M. in the Chamber and as one C. R. A. No. 1783 of 1985 was part heard before Justice R. D. Vyas he could not remain present before this court at 2. 45 P. M. on 15-10-92. and in his absence the matter was dismissed for default. Thus sufficient cause has been made out for restoring main C. R. A. and accordingly it may be restored. In support of his submission. he has drawn my attention to para 1 of this Application. In para I of this Application it has been stated that; the applicants submit that the above matter was fixed for hearing on 14th October 1992. The matter could not be taken up and the matter was adourned to 15th October 1992. The advocate Mr. S. K. Jhaveri had no personal knowledge about the matter had been fixed at 2. 45 before Justice Mr. B. J. Shethna in the Chamber and the matter of Civil Revision Application No. 1783 of 1985 was part heared before Justice R. D. Vyas he could not remained present at 2. 45 on 15th October 1992. Therefore the Honble Court has dismissed the matter for want of prosecution. ( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid contention raised by Mr. 45 on 15th October 1992. Therefore the Honble Court has dismissed the matter for want of prosecution. ( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid contention raised by Mr. Zaveri I would like to reproduce my order dated 15-10-92 passed in C. R. A. No. 1541 of 1980 which is as under:this matter was previously adjourned four times at the request of learned advocate Mr. Zaveri. Yesterday learned advocate Mr. K. S. Zaveri told that learned advocate Mr. S. K. Zaveri is appearing as counsel in this matter and he has filed a sick note and therefore it may be kept tomorrow and accordingly it is kept today. This matter was specially separately notified on the Civil Board for today and till 4. 20 P. M. neither Mr. K. S. Zaveri nor Mr. S. K. Zaveri has remained present. Therefore this application has to be dismissed in absence of the learned advocate for the petitioner. Accordingly it is dismissed for default. Rule is discharged. ( 4 ) FROM the order it clearly appears that before the main C. R. A. was dismissed for default it was adjourned four times prior to 15-10-92 on one or other ground. On the previous day i. e. on 14 it was adjourned at the request of learned advocate Shri K. S. Zaveri on the ground that Shri S. K. Zaveri was to appear as counsel in the matter and on that day he had filed a sick note. Therefore main C. R. A. was specially separately notified for hearing on the Civil Board on 15-10-92. But on that day neither Mr. K. S. Zaveri nor Mr. S. K. Zaveri remained present till 4. 2 P. M. and therefore this Court was left with no option but to dismiss of case for default. Therefore it is not correct to say that on 14 the matter could not be taken up by the Court and the same was adjourned to 15-10-92. In one breath it has been stated in para 1 of this Application that the learned advocate Shri S. K. Zaveri had no personal knowledge about the matter being fixed at 2. 45 P. M. on 15-10-92 before this court and in the next breath it has been stated that C. R. A. No. 1783 of 1985 was part heard before Justice R. D. Vyas. Thus there is clear inconsistency in the statement. 45 P. M. on 15-10-92 before this court and in the next breath it has been stated that C. R. A. No. 1783 of 1985 was part heard before Justice R. D. Vyas. Thus there is clear inconsistency in the statement. At least Shri K. S. Zaveri was aware about the matter as the same was adjourned at his requst and kept on the next day but nobody even bothered to come and mention. Thus in court opinion no ground is made out to restore the main C. R. A. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment court may only state the matters which are dismissed for default can not be restored on mere asking. It can not be taken for granted that as when application for restoration is filed the matter will be restored. If the advocate or a party who wants to avoid a particular court from proceeding with his case may allow his matter to be dismissed for default and after some time according to his convenience he may move an application for restoration so that his matter can be heard by the court convenient to him. Such practice ought not and should not be encouraged by the Court. ( 6 ) ORDINARILY the matters which are dismissed for default are restored on the sufficient cause made out by the parties but as stated earlier no cause much less sufficient cause has been made out for restoring the main C. R. A. This is a case in which though immediately on the next day i. e. 16 this Application was filed by the learned advocate he had not filed his affidavit till 21 and now this matter is moved for urgent orders by filing a note for restoring the main C. R. A. Circumstances in which this Application was filed and moved do not justify the restoration of main Civil Revision Application. Hence this Application fails and is dismissed. Application Dismissed. .