Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The legal battle of twenty four years has landed ultimately to this Court by way of this instant appeal in which the order of the trial Court, refusing to readmit the appeal, has been challenged. 3. For appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties some factual background may be portrayed;One Krishna Kumar Jain, Secretary of Harkhen Kumar Jain, Digambar Dharmshala as plaintiff filed the title suit No. 23 of 1976 for eviction of the appellant and others on the ground of default, personal necessity and subletting. The defendant contested the suit stating, inter alia, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff had no title over the property. During the pendency of this appeal one Ram Sakkhi Devi filed title suit No. 153 of 1981 for a declaration of title over the suit premises. Her case was that she purchased the property from the real title holder by registered sale deed dated 28-10-1981. The third suit was filed by one Kamla Devi and others being title suit No. 26 of 1982 praying therein for partition of their 3/4th share out of the disputed properties on the ground that they were heirs of original land holder. As the disputed properties in all the suits were the same, they were made analogous and after hearing the suits a common judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court. The suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction was decreed but other two title suits were dismissed. 4. The appellant who was defendant in title suit No. 23 of 1976 filed title appeal No. 97 of 1991. Similarly Ram Sakhi Devi and Kamla Devi and others filed title appeal Nos. 128 of 1991 and 129 of 1991 respectively against the said judgment and decree. These appeals were also made ready for analogous hearing. 5. On 9-3-2000 on repeated calls no one appeared on behalf of the appellants and the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the Respondents was, however, present in the Court. 6. While dismissing the appeals the first appellate Court noticed that the appellants filed time petitions on 1-10-1999, 24-1-2000 and 15-2-2000 on the ground of illness of the appellant. On 9-3-2000 on repeated calls no one appeared on behalf of the appellants and the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the Respondents was, however, present in the Court. 6. While dismissing the appeals the first appellate Court noticed that the appellants filed time petitions on 1-10-1999, 24-1-2000 and 15-2-2000 on the ground of illness of the appellant. Earlier also several adjournments were allowed liberally but in spite of latitude given to the appellant his counsel could not be ready for arguing the appeals for a long period and as such, ultimately the 1st Additional District Judge, Arrah dismissed all the appeals. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed petition under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure for readmission of the three title appeals which were numbered as Misc. Cases 1/2000, 2/2000 and 3/2000 respectively. By the impugned order dated 8-2-2000 all the miscellaneous cases were dismissed by reasoned order and thus the appellant has moved this Court. 8. Mr. Dwivedi learned senior counsel for the appellant, with reference to the decision in the case of G.P. Srivastava V/s. R. K. Raizoda, reported in 2000 SAR (Civil) 343 contends that the Court below has committed an apparent error in law by dismissing the appeals considering the past conduct of the appellants. According to him, the Court was required to see as to whether on 9-3-2000 itself the appellant was actually prevented by sufficient cause or not to pursue his appeal. He next contended that no notice was issued to the learned counsel for the parties that the appeals would be heard on 9-3-2000 and that having not issued the absence of the appellants or their counsel could not have been a ground for dismissal of the appeals. According to him, the court ought to have awaited till 2.15 p.m. for the learned counsel for the appellants to move the petition for time but that having not done the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Referring to annexure-1 series, he urged that notices were sent from different Courts to their lawyers from time to time but in the present case no such notice was sent to the learned counsel for the appellants and in absence of any notice the appellants or their counsel could not be presented themselves on 9-3-2000. 10. Mr. 9. Referring to annexure-1 series, he urged that notices were sent from different Courts to their lawyers from time to time but in the present case no such notice was sent to the learned counsel for the appellants and in absence of any notice the appellants or their counsel could not be presented themselves on 9-3-2000. 10. Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 strongly contended that this is a glaring case of deliberate laches on the part of the appellants where the decree for eviction obtained by the landlord on one of the grounds of personal necessity was sought to be frustrated. According to him, the 1st Additional Judge, Arrah after hearing the parties and perusing the records of the case was convinced that the appellants were bent upon to drag the matters in order to deprive the decree holder-plaintiff to enjoy the fruit of the decree. According to him, the reasonings given by the Court below are sufficient to hold that due to some ulterior motive the appellants of the title appeals were not ready for disposal of the appeals on merit. 11. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Dwivedi on the basis of the case of G.P. Srivastava (2000 SAR (Civil) 343) (supra), the fact of the said case is required to be noticed. There also the suit for eviction was instituted and the case was called on for hearing by the Court in the early hours on 10-3-1983. As no one appeared on behalf of the defendant, the same was again taken up at 2.00 p.m. The defendant having failed to appear at that time also the suit was decreed ex parte on the basis of evidence produced in the case. The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that he was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department and on account of the construction of bridges over the casual drains he had to remain at the site in the interest of public. He became indisposed in the evening of 8th March, 1982 at the site which was about 85 kilometers away from Lucknow and could not move or return back to Lucknow till 11-3-1983 which prevented him to appear in the trial Court on 10-3-1983. He became indisposed in the evening of 8th March, 1982 at the site which was about 85 kilometers away from Lucknow and could not move or return back to Lucknow till 11-3-1983 which prevented him to appear in the trial Court on 10-3-1983. Unfortunately, the young nephew of the learned counsel for the defendant met with an accident on 10-3-1983 and expired which prevented his counsel also to appear in the Court on that date. It was contended before the trial Court that those were the circumstances which prevented the appellant and his counsel to be present in the court and as such, absence was not intentional. The application was supported by his affidavit and a medical certificate. The trial Court, however, did not accept either of the pleas raised by the defendant and found the absence of defendant or his counsel in the Court on 10-3-1983 was not for just or sufficient cause. The medical certificate was not relied on as the same was obtained from a private deoctor and not from a government doctor. The High Court also did not accept the contention of the defendant-appellant and noticing his previous conduct rejected the revision petition refusing to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. When the matter went up to the Apex Court in appeal, their Lordships allowed the appeal. Setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial Court their Lordships have opined that sufficient case for the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code has to be construed as elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The Courts have wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The "Sufficient Cause" for non-appearance refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other circumstances anterior in time. If "sufficient cause" is made out for non-appearance of the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings initiated against him, he cannot be penalised for his previous negligence which had been overlooked and thereby condoned earlier. According to their Lordships, in a case where defendant approaches the Court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not malafide or intentional. According to their Lordships, in a case where defendant approaches the Court immediately and within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not malafide or intentional. For the absence of a party in the case the other side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis decided on merits. As the trial Court as well as the High Court did not accept the plea of absence of the counsel for defendant-appellant as well as the certificate from a private doctor the Supreme Court opined that both courts have adopted a very narrow and technical approach in dealing with a matter pertaining to the eviction of the appellant despite the fact that he had put a reasonable defence and had approached the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree, admittedly within the statutory period. 12. In this background, let us examine the conduct of the present appellant in the present case. The appellant in support of his contention examined five witnesses and other two appellants in Miscellaneous cases 3/2000 and 1/2000 examined one witness each. Applicant witness (A.W. in short) No. 1, the Advocates clerk, deposed that on 9-3-2000 a petition for time was filed by him on behalf of the appellant in title appeal No. 97 of 1991. When the Advocate went to move the time petition after lunch he came to know that the appeals were dismissed. He admitted that the time petition was filed on the instruction of his client and this instruction was sent to his house on 8-3-2000. This witness also does pairvi in other two title appeals on behalf of the appellants but he, however, did not make any pairvi in these two appeals because all the three were to be heard together. A.W.2, the applicant himself, stated that he is a patient of asthama. He was ill since October, 1999 to March, 2000 and during this period he got treatment from allopathic doctors and the names of these doctors have been given. He further stated that he took treatment from Dr. Harendra Prasad under acupuncture system of treatment and got some relief. He stated that specifically on 9-3-2000 he was ill and was not able to attend the Court. He further stated that he took treatment from Dr. Harendra Prasad under acupuncture system of treatment and got some relief. He stated that specifically on 9-3-2000 he was ill and was not able to attend the Court. He sent an information to this effect to the Advocates clerk and his Advocate could not attend the Court when the appeal was called for hearing. This witness stated that argument was complete in the year 1996 but thereafter the matter of the Court fee was raised and in the meantime one of the Respondents in title appeal No. 129 of 1991 died and substitution took some time. The disposal of the appeal was delayed for this reason. In his cross-examination A.W. 2, that is, the present appellant admitted that the appellant of title appeal No. 128 of 1991 is his wife. According to him he filed medical certificate given by Dr. Harendra Prasad and he was ill from 26-10-1999 to 21-3-2000. In cross-examination, however, this witness admitted that in a criminal case, where both he and his son are accused, filed his and his sons attendance on 23-9-1999, 19-11-1999 and 23-12-1999. He further stated that his attendance might have been filed on 19-1-2000, 15-2-2000 and 3-3-2000 also which could be verified from the records. A.W. 3, a shop-keeper of the Mohalla of the appellant, stated that Ram Awatar Prasad was ill since October, 1999 to March, 2000. A.W. 4, Dr. Harendra Prasad, who issued medical certificate (Ext. 2) has stated that Ram Awatar Prasad was suffering from asthama. He further stated in cross-examination that he did not give treatment under acupuncture process to him but just demostrated the system to him. He prescribed some medicines for him. Ram Awatar Prasad was under his treatment from 8-3-2000 to 21-3-2000. To this effect he did not maintain any record for his patients. A.W.5 is a formal witness who has proved the prescription of other allopathic doctors. 13. In Misc. Case No. 1 of 2000 the applicant examined her witness, who is Narayan Prasad. According to him, the lower court records of title appeal No. 128 of 1991 was sent for realisation of Court-fee and one file of the lower Court records of title appeal No. 129 of 1991 was missing. One Respondent died and substitution took some time and, therefore, there was delay in hearing of these appeals. According to him, the lower court records of title appeal No. 128 of 1991 was sent for realisation of Court-fee and one file of the lower Court records of title appeal No. 129 of 1991 was missing. One Respondent died and substitution took some time and, therefore, there was delay in hearing of these appeals. The applicant of Miscellaneous case No. 3/2000 has examined himself and he also deposed in similar fashion stating that he did not know if the appeal would be heard on 9-3-2000.On the other hand, opposite party examined himself in all the Miscellaneous cases as O.P.W. No. 1 and deposed categorically that Ram Awatar Prasad was not ill and he saw him working in shop in January, February and March this year. Apart from this oral evidence some documents were filed which are prescriptions of doctors and other medical certificates. The Opposite Party, on the other hand, filed certified copy of the ordersheet of criminal case (Ext. A), attendance filed on behalf of Ram Awatar Prasad and his sons on 23-3-1999, 23-9-1999, 23-12-1999, 19-1-2000, 15-2-2000 and 31-3-2000 (Ext.B series). The certified copy of the ordersheet was exhibited as Ext. C. 14. These were the evidences on record before the Court below. From these evidences the Court found that on 9-3-2000 when the three appeals were called for for about two hours from 11a.m. to 01.05 p.m. no one had appeared. The Court disbelieved the plea of the appellant, Ram Awatar Prasad, that he was ill from October, 1999 to March, 2000 on the ground that during that period the attendances were filed in the criminal case which has been admitted by the appellant himself. He has not given any explanation but merely stated that he might have little ill on those dates in which dates the attendances were filed in the criminal case. The Court below has rightly found that this was not the matter for one day because his illness, according to him, was continuing for a period from October, 1999 to March, 2000. On the other hand, the order sheet and the attendance in the criminal case shows that his attendance that his attendance was filed on two dates in the criminal case during the said period. On the other hand, the order sheet and the attendance in the criminal case shows that his attendance that his attendance was filed on two dates in the criminal case during the said period. Moreover, on all those dates, when attendances were filed by the appellant in the criminal case, time petition was filed on his behalf on those dates in the title appeals. 15. From the record the trial Court found that on 15-2-2000 dates were fixed in both the cases, that is, in title appeals as well as in criminal case but the appellant filed his attendance in the criminal case and filed a time petition in the title appeal on the ground of illness and had filed photo copies of the prescription of the doctor with the same. 16. I fail to appreciate that when the appellant, Ram Awatar Prasad, could file his attendance in criminal case, what was the reason for filing time petition in the appellate Court on the ground of his illness. This conduct of the appellant clearly indicates that he was not at all interested in hearing the title appeals. If, under these circumstances, the trial Court has disbelieved the prescriptions and medical certificate on the ground that they were false and have been created for the purpose of litigation only and it cannot be believed that the same cannot be held to be unjustified. From the records the Court found that after 21-3-2000 Ram Awatar Prasad never became ill because since that date he had been attending the Court regularly without any sign of illness. The case of Kawleshwar Singh V/s. Raghubir Singh reported in AIR 1961 Patna 299 has been relied by the Court below rightly inasmuch as in that case also the appellant attended the criminal Court but did not make any pairvi in the appeal. 17. This Court, under these circumstances, was of the view that the application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code was rightly dismissed on merits. In the instant appeal I find from the impugned order that the lerned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code because the appellant, Ram Awatar Prasad has failed to prove sufficient cause for not attending the Court when the appeals were called for hearing. 18. In the instant appeal I find from the impugned order that the lerned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code because the appellant, Ram Awatar Prasad has failed to prove sufficient cause for not attending the Court when the appeals were called for hearing. 18. It was contended before the trial Court that the attendance of the appellant was not necessary in title appeal and the appellant was only to engage the lawyer. If the Advocate engaged by the appellant did not appear, when the appeals were called for heraing the appellant cannot be and should not be made to suffer for the fault of his lawyer. The Court below, in my view, has properly appreciated the law propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Lachi Devi V/s. Director of Land Records, AIR 1984 SC 41 and in the case of Binod Baruah V/s. Ratul Chandra Goswami, AIR 1987 Gauhati 7 and has observed that for fault of the lawyer the client cannot be made to suffer. But he has distinguished the present case noticing that the appellants in these three appeals did not instruct their lawyers to argue the appeal rather they instructed their Advocates only to take adjournment on the ground of illness of Ram Awatar Prasad. This is an admitted fact that in title appeal No. 128 of 1991 the appellant Ram Sakhi Devi is the wife of Ram Awatar Prasad. So even assuming for the sake of argument that Ram Awatar Prasad was ill on a particular date, there was no reason for Ram Sakhi Devi, his wife to instruct the lawyer to argue the appeal, when all the three appeals were made analogous. It is futile for the learned counsel to suggest that the appeals were not ready for hearing because from the impugned order it reveals that the matter of court fee, reconstruction of records and substitution was over long ago. 19. The argument of Mr. Dwivedi was that no notice was issued by the Court to the appellants for hearing of these appeals, in my view, is not sustainable. The appeals were filed at the instance of the appellants and the dates were fixed for argument which are on the record. Moreover, this was not the ground which was taken in the petition under Order 41 Rule 9 of the Code. The appeals were filed at the instance of the appellants and the dates were fixed for argument which are on the record. Moreover, this was not the ground which was taken in the petition under Order 41 Rule 9 of the Code. Mr. Dwivedi has produced before me a copy of the said petition and I have perused the same and the grounds taken by the appellant in his petition have been answered by the Court below. In this connection I may quote paragraph 10 of the petition, which reads as follows ;"That only laches on the part of the appellant in this appeal is that he did not get the lawyer ready due to his illness otherwise there is no sortcoming on his part in the matter of argument of appeal,"This admission of the appellant himself justifies the finding of the Court below that the appellant did not instruct his counsel to argue the appeal and only instructed him to file petitions after petitions for time on some frivolous ground. 20. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the Court, below has not committed any illegality in refusing to readmit the appeal. 21. Lastly, in my view, the reliance of Mr. Dwivedi on the case of G.P. Srivastava V/s. Sri R.K. Raizada and Ors. reported in 2000 SAR (Civil) 859 is of no avail. It is well settled principle of law that interlocutory orders passed in suit before its restoration will automatically revive after the suit is restored. In the instant appeal, that circumstances are not there. 22. In the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 25-9-2000 stands vacated. The Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with Execution Case No. 3 of 1991 forthwith in accordance with law.Appeal dismissed.