JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. (Oral) -- Civil Suit No. 71-A/99 for eviction and recovery of. arrears of rent were filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the defendants. It was fixed for evidence of plaintiff on 2.9.1999. Plaintiff (84), who was indisposed due to heart attack, was advised complete bed rest by his physician Dr. Moiz Hussain. Plaintiff's son was also suffering from blood cancer and was admitted in the hospital during August 23 to August 28, 1999 for chemotherapy treatment and advised bed rest. Junior counsel appeared in the case and intimated the Court that witnesses had not come while senior counsel was ill and sought adjournment which was rejected and the judgment followed for non-appearance of the plaintiff. Question is whether a case for ·setting aside the judgment dated 2.9.1999 is made out on the ground that the plaintiff was ill, so was his son. Senior counsel appearing in the case on behalf of plaintiff suffered heart attack on account of which he too was absent. Learned counsel for respondents submits that plaintiff was making persistent defaults in appearing in the Court for prosecution of his case, as is clear from order sheet dated 2.9.1999. It is true that the plaintiff has been making defaults in appearing in the Court for some time in the past but that does not appear to be without justification. As said, he is an old man of 84 with failing health resulting in heart attack at a later stage. Similarly, his son was also suffering from cancer for some time past. The calamity also fell on the lawyer appearing for him as he suffered heart attack. Junior counsel got bewildered when the Court rejected the prayer for adjournment. But for the difficulties to which the plaintiff was put by circumstances, he has been making persistent efforts to prosecute the case in various Courts. Circumstances placed before the Court by the junior counsel were enough t6 postpone the matter. After all, effort of Courts should be to decide claims of parties on merits after giving them reasonable opportunity to put up and prove their respective cases, instead of rejecting them despite genuine and justified mistakes in prosecuting them. In 2000(2) ill 340 = (2000) 7 SCC 372 (State of M.P. and another v. Pradeep Kumar and another), the Apex Court said in paragraph 12 the "12. In 2000(2) ill 340 = (2000) 7 SCC 372 (State of M.P. and another v. Pradeep Kumar and another), the Apex Court said in paragraph 12 the "12. It is true that the pristine maxim vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura sub veniunt (law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights). But even a vigilant litigant is prone to commit mistakes. As the aphorism 'to err is human' is more a practical notion of human behavior than an abstract philosophy, the unintentional lapse on the part of a litigant should not normally' cause the doors of the judicature to be permanently closed before him. The effort of the Court should not be one of finding means to pull down the shutters of adjudicatory jurisdiction before a party who seeks justice, on account of any mistake committed by him, but to see whether it is possible to entertain his grievance if it is genuine." Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 2.9.1999 is set aside. Case is remanded to the trial Court where parties/counsel will appear on December 2, 2000, and follow the directions of the trial Court for speedy disposal of the case on merits. Plaintiff-appellant will pay cost of Rs. 500.00 to the defendants-respondents.