JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 6.12.1995 ssed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Chhoti Sadri in Civil Misc. Case No. 32/93 which was a review petition and the learned Judge dismissed the same. 2. The facts are that the civil original suit No. 27/80, Modiram v. Mathuralal , was fixed for statement of defendant u/O. 10 R. 2 CPC before the learned Judge. When the case as called at 2.50 p.m. Shri B.L. Patidar filed a brief on behalf of counsel for the plaintiffs ut even then the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiffs were of present. Review petition was filed but the same was dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs. Nobody was present n behalf of defendants- respondents at the time of hearing. From the order-sheet dated 1.12.1992 it is clear that the statement of the plaintiff was recorded u/O. 10 R. 2 CPC and the suit was fixed for evidence of the defendants u/O. 10 R. 2 CPC but on 28.11.1993 defendant or his counsel were not present while the brief holder of the plaintiff's counsel was present in the Court even then the learned Civil Judge (JD) dismissed the suit and when the review petition was filed the same was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners plaintiffs submitted that the learned Civil Judge (JD) Chhoti Sadri without considering that it was the defendant who was not present and the plaintiff's counsel brief holder was present, dismissed the suit and even did not correct the order when review petition was filed which shows the high-handedness of the learned Judge. 5. It will he too much to pass any remark about the Judge himself but it is apparent that he did not look into the provisions of law. The suit could not have been dismissed when the brief holder of the plaintiff's counsel was present. When the review petition was filed before him he dismissed the same because no appeal or revision was filed against the order dated 23.1 1.1993. This view of the learned trial Judge was not correct. He has definitely committed error of jurisdiction in passing both the orders. When the review petition was filed before him he dismissed the same because no appeal or revision was filed against the order dated 23.1 1.1993. This view of the learned trial Judge was not correct. He has definitely committed error of jurisdiction in passing both the orders. In my view this is a fit case in which the provisions of Section 115 CPC are attracted.Consequently the revision petition is allowed and both the orders of learned Civil Judge (JD) Chhoti Sadri are set aside. The Civil Suit No. 27/80, Modilal v. Mathuralal shall he taken on file and proceeded with. The plaintiffs are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.12.1998. A copy of this order along with second be sent to the learned trial Judge immediately.Revision allowed. *******