JEDGMENT D. Raju, C.J. (Oral) 1. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan dated 3.3.1998 in civil. Misc. Application No. 01-N/6 of 1997/1996 where under the learned Judge in the Court below rejected the application for restoring an earlier restoration application dismissed for default on the ground that it has not been supported by sufficient cause. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Court below against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, dated 19.10.1993 in Civil Suit No. 54/1 of 1992. The petitioner was also plaintiff therein and the suit was for specific performance of a contract, which came to be dismissed after trial. The appeal filed by the petitioner in the Court below appears to have been dismissed on 27.11.1996 on the ground that neither the petitioner, who was the appellant, nor his counsel was present in the Court when the case was called. Thereupon, the petitioner appears to have filed an application for restoring the appeal, which was dismissed for default, as above. As misfortune could have had it, the said application came to be dismissed again for default. It is at that stage the subsequent application came to be filed for restoring the earlier restoration application so that the matter could be considered for restoration as also the appeal being heard on merits. The petitioner, therefore, filed the above revision. 2. Having regard to stage at which the matter was brought before this Court and the nature of the matter, notice of motion was issued and the respondent has entered appearance through counsel. 3. Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel contended while inviting my attention to the order of the Court below that the learned Judge in the Court below had adopted an unduly strict approach, which was technical too and that there had been no proper appreciation of the grievance of the petitioner and also of the sufficient cause shown for the absence on two occasions in their proper perspective and that, therefore, the order could not be sustained. It was argued by the learned counsel that the exercise of discretion was arbitrary in the matter and, therefore an interference is called for. Per contra, Mr. It was argued by the learned counsel that the exercise of discretion was arbitrary in the matter and, therefore an interference is called for. Per contra, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - defendant with equal force contended that no exception could be taken to the order of the learned Judge in the court below for the reason 4 that not only there was initial default by allowing the appeal to be dismissed but no serious effort was made to prosecute that matter even when the restoration application was before the Court and consequently no premium need be put on petitioner for such consistent default and the order passed by the Learned Judge in the Court below does not call for interference. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The learned Judge in the Court below, in my view, could have adopted a more reasonable approach without being too much technical on the indisputable lapse committed by the petitioner and his counsel in this case. The reason which was assigned for the non appearance of the appellant on 27.11.1996 when the appeal was dismissed for default was said to be the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner, who was the appellant in the Court below. It is not the case of the respondent that the reason so assigned is either false or an incorrect reason. While that be the position, no serious blame could be fixed on the petitioner for such default merely because the counsel was also not present on that day by holding that the petitioner should have ensured the proper presence of the counsel on 27.11.1996. That in my view, is too much of an expectation from the petitioner who was engaged in the marriage of his daughter, all the more so when he has engaged a counsel, who too was expected to be present on the date to make sufficient representations. So far as the second lapse, which resulted in the dismissal of the application for restoration for non-prosecution is concerned, it is seen that the counsel who was engaged reached the Court a little late by about 12.30 p.m. and in the meantime the restoration application was got dismissed. So far as the second lapse, which resulted in the dismissal of the application for restoration for non-prosecution is concerned, it is seen that the counsel who was engaged reached the Court a little late by about 12.30 p.m. and in the meantime the restoration application was got dismissed. of course, the performance of the counsel cannot be said to be that commendable, but at the same time taking into account that the petitioner has done his best by engaging a responsible counsel and for the mere lapse on the part of the counsel, the party should not be allowed to suffer serious consequences when substantial rights to property are claimed and involved for determination in the case, at the same time, the petitioner should not be allowed to go scot-free without any impact for the consistent lapse noticed in the case and the resultant troubles undertaken by the respondent to make his counsel appear every time. In my view, the interest of justice would require while condoning the lapse on the part of the petitioner and his counsel for being absent on the relevant dates and setting aside the order of the learned Judge in the Court below while allowing the application thereby and as a consequence order the restoration of the appeal, certain condition should be imposed to suitably compensate the respondent. In my view, the interest of justice would be better served by taking lenient view in the matter and at the same time imposing a condition that the petitioner shall pay to the counsel for the respondent in this Court Rs. 500/- as costs within six weeks from this date and the receipt be filled in the Registry of this Court, which will be kept as a record alongwith the case and failing compliance with such condition this revision shall stand dismissed. On compliance with the condition, imposed as above, the orders passed by the Court below in the restoration application shall stand set aside and the appeal shall stand restored to its original file and No. on the file of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, and the learned District Judge shall ensure the disposal of the said appeal by giving top priority to the same on account of the long lapse of time, within six months from the date on which the appeal is restored by him to his file.