SATYABRATA SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated april 1, 1999, passed by the learned Single judge of this Court whereby and where under he refused to recall an order dismissing the suit ex parte. ( 2 ) THE appellant had filed a suit. It was appearing under the heading "for hearing" on february 26, 1999. On that day, even the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent was also not present. As nobody had appeared when the matter was called on, the said suit was dismissed for default. ( 3 ) ON the same date, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant appeared before the learned Trial Judge and prayed for recalling of the said order. However, he was asked to file an appropriate application. Such an application was filed stating, inter alia, that:"5. On or about 26th February, 1999 the matter was appearing in the combined list Of His Lordship the Hon'ble mr. Justice Amitava Lala for hearing and the plaintiff was resting assured that the plaintiff having entrusted the matter to the learned Advocates like Mr. J. Mitra. Mr. D. Roychowdhury and S. Ghosh the matter would be taken care of by the learned Advocates. Unfortunately on that day Mr. Roychowdhury was out of station and Mr. Mitra: could not reach the Hon'ble Court due to bandh call by cpi-ML and Mr. S. Ghosh reached the hon'ble Court after recess and as a result the matter was called thrice and since nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiff the matter was dismissed for default of appearance. As a matter of fact Shri ghosh mentioned the matter before His lordship the Hon'ble Justice Lala at 4. 15 p. m. on that day but he was asked by His Lordship to mention on next monday, i. e. 1. 3. 99". ( 4 ) IN our opinion, sufficient cause has been shown by the Appellant herein. ( 5 ) THE learned Trial Judge, however, did not-rely upon the principles laid down in AIR 1981 SC 1400 stating that the same is not a good law in view of the latter decision of the apex Court in Salil Dutta v. TM and. MC private Limited. The Apex Court in. Salil dutta (supra) has not laid down "any law in absolute terms. ( 6 ) EACH case has to be judged on' its own facts. MC private Limited. The Apex Court in. Salil dutta (supra) has not laid down "any law in absolute terms. ( 6 ) EACH case has to be judged on' its own facts. The very fact that the learned advocates assigned sufficient reason for their not being able to be present as also the fact' that even the matter was mentioned on that date itself, in our opinion, clearly go to show that there had been no latches'on the part of the' learned advocates and/or the appellant herein. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, allow this appeal after treating the same on the day's list and set aside the order dated April 1, 1999, and direct the suit to be restored in its original list subject to payment of the sum of 50 GMs to the learned advocate appearing for the respondent within july 26, 1999. The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of. ( 8 ) ALL parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings. Appeal allowed.