JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. A J. S. C. C. Suit No. 23 of 1985 was filed before Respondent No. 5, IInd Additional District Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad, against one defendant Abdul Samad, predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No. 4. The suit was dismissed on November 20, 1995. Plaintiff field S. C. C. Revision No. 1 of 19% under Section 25 of the-Provincial Small Cause Court Act, which was transferred to the Court of Respondent No. 5. Revision was dismissed in default on 28th May, 1998 (Annexure 1). Plaintiff- revisionists filed an application for setting aside the order dated 28th May, 1998. A Restoration Application (registered as Misc. Case No. 28 of 1998) for recalling of the said order was filed along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning of delay of 38 days in filing restoration application, copies of the said Restoration Application and Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act have been filed as Annexure Nos. 2 and 4 to the writ petition. 2. THE Revisional Court directed vide order dated 1-2-1999 for substituted ser vice by publication in newspaper and requisites were to be submitted by the Revisionists in Court on or before 9-2-1999. THE Revisionist failed to supply requisites for publication of notice. THE aforementioned Restoration Application Misc. Case No. 28 of 1998 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 9-2-1999 (Annexure 5 to the petition). THE petitioner thereafter filed an application for recalling of the order dated 9-2-1999, the said application was supported by an affidavit of one Yunus Khan, Advocate, the counsel representing the Revisionist in that Court. True copies of the said application and affidavit have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition. THE Court below has rejected the said application by means of impugned judgment and order dated 16ih March, 1999 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved plaintiff filed writ petition claiming a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 9-2- 1999 (Annexure 5.) Petitioner has however, also sought relief for quashing of the orders dated 28th May, 1998 (Annexure 1) and 16th March, 1999 (Annexure 8). 3. I have heard Ms. Feeling aggrieved plaintiff filed writ petition claiming a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 9-2- 1999 (Annexure 5.) Petitioner has however, also sought relief for quashing of the orders dated 28th May, 1998 (Annexure 1) and 16th March, 1999 (Annexure 8). 3. I have heard Ms. Chitra Lekha Satsangi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner at the admission stage and propose to decide the writ petition finally as otherwise purpose of filing suit before Judge, Small Causes Court shall be itself frustrated and even otherwise, I do not find ground for keeping the writ petition pending, in view of the settled and crystallised legal position. 4. AT the outset I would like to mention that the writ petition is not maintainable against these orders. Two orders dated 9th February, 1999 and 28th May, 1998 (Annexure 5 and 1 respectively) are not being challenged and learned counsel for the petitioner, as prayed, is permitted to amend the prayer contained in Clause (a) accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has erred in law and committed manifest error apparent on the face of record in rejecting the application (Annexure 6). Court did not disbelieve the affidavit of the Advocate filed before it. Said affidavit contained reasons for not furnishing requisite on or before 9-2-1999. Explanation has not been disbelieved. The Court below was not justified in being swayed by extraneous consideration, namely, past conduct of the Revisionist, particularly, when it had no occasion as yet to come to a conclusion that default in the past was deliberate or intentional. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also stated that there is nothing on record before Revisional Court in rebuttal of the said affidavit and that Revisional Court did not disbelieve the explanation to the effect that clerk of the concerned counsel had met an accident. 6. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is justified in the aforesaid submission. The Revisional Court not having disbelieved the explanation offered by the Revisionist, it could not come to the conclusion that sufficient ground was not made out for recalling of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner was not all relevant while deciding restoration application in question. 7. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the revision in Ram Raj and other v. Dy. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner was not all relevant while deciding restoration application in question. 7. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the revision in Ram Raj and other v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 1998 (2) SCD 85. For convenient perusal, relevant Para 6 is reproduced below: "thus, it appears that sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners indicating the circumstances under which petitioner who was doing Pairvi in the case could not reach court in time on 9-3-1983. LEARNED Deputy Director of Consolidation has, thus, erred in rejecting the application for restoration on. erroneous ground. In may opinion, the past conduct of the petitioners and previous negligence or want of diligence on their part to prosecute their case could not he made basis for rejecting the application for restoration moved by the petitioners wherein sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance of petitioner No. 22, Ram Jiyawan, who had reached connate due to his sudden illness while coining to Court. " 8. IN the instant case, as noted above, there was no occasion for the Revisional Court to come to the conclusion that the default in the past was not bona fide hence past conduct was not a relevant factor while passing impugned order. Consequently judgment and order dated 16th March, 1999 (Annexure 8) is set aside. The case is being remanded with direction to Respondent No. 5 to decide restoration application (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition) registered as Misc. Case Nil of 1999 (Abdul Wahid v. Zareena). 9. SINCE I have allowed the petition without issuing notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it shall be open to the respondents, if-they at all feel aggrieved and if so advised, to approach this Court by filing a Review Petition. Petition allowed.