J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 185 of 1984 by the Judge City Civil Court No. 7 on January 15 1986 rejecting an application filed for restoration by invoking the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (. Code ). ( 2 ) THE respondent-opponent had filed Misc. Civil Application No. 570 of 1983 for setting aside the award made by the Arbitrator Shri N. K. Patel. The petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation contested the said application for setting aside the award with a request to pass a decree in terms of award. The said Arbitrator had also filed Civil Misc. Application No. 694 of 1983 for making the award passed by him as a Rule of the Court. The aforesaid two applications were placed before the City Civil. Court Ahmedabad and impugned order was passed against the Corporation setting aside the award. Both the advocates of the Corporation were not present when the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore the corporation preferred Civil Misc. Application No. 185 of 1984 to set aside the order passed in Misc. Civil Applications Nos. 570 of 1983 and 694 of 1983 It was contended that the advocates of the petitioner-Corporation were not aware about the fact that as to when those matters were placed for hearing and the impugned order came to be passed against the Corporation. Application was contested by the otherside in the trial court and after hearing the parties the trial court decided against the defendant on 15. 1. 1986. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and considering circumscribed jurisdictional sweep in a revision under Sec. 115 of the Code it is found that there is no material substance in this revision. It cannot be said that the impugned orders are passed in absence of the lawyers and therefore it is a jurisdictional error. Unless one or more parameters and the grounds enumerated in Sec. 115 of the Code is established this court should not be inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The learned trial Judge has considered the ground of absence of the lawyers. It is not the case of absence for a particular day. Unless one or more parameters and the grounds enumerated in Sec. 115 of the Code is established this court should not be inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The learned trial Judge has considered the ground of absence of the lawyers. It is not the case of absence for a particular day. Advocates and the officers of the Corporation had remained absent. The trial court has observed that merely on the ground of absence of a party or its advocate on one single day or any other day with a reasonable ground the matter should not be dismissed. But it is found from the record by the trial court that not only on any one day but on all the adjourn dates the same phenomenon continued. Neither the officer nor any representative of the petitioner-Corporation or the advocate for the Corporation remained present when the matter was called out frequently. Ultimately on the last day it came to be dismissed. The trial court has observed that there is no justification or cause to allow the application in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The view taken by the trial court Judge could not be said to be perverse unreasonable or illegal and therefore there appears to be no any justification for interference in this Revision under Sec. 115 of the code where in scope is limited. ( 4 ) WITH the result this petition is required to be rejected being meritless. Accordingly it is rejected Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. Revision Dismissed. .