JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is plaintiff in Civil Suit No, 8/96 has come up by way of instant revision petition challenging the order dated 11.3.97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur) by which the said court had dismissed petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay and also the restoration application which was rejected by the trial court. 2. The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC claiming the relief of permanent injunction in the court of ADJ, Deeg on 1st July, 1992, which was transferred to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nagar as per the orders of the learned District Judge dated 10 7.1.93. The petitioner had engaged Shri Surendra Nath Gupta as Advocate though the learned counsel for the parties were appearing every day of hearing while the suit was pending before the said trial courts. However for the reasons beyond the control of plaintiff, he should not appear before the court to which the suit was transferred i.e. from the court of MJM, Nagar to 15 ADJ No. 1, Deeg since he had no prior knowledge or intimation with regard to the same. Consequently the matter went in default for non-prosecution though from the perusal of the impugned order dated 11.8.97, it is borne out that one Shri Dayaram Gupta had appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Shri J.P. Gupta put appearance on behalf of the respondents in the Misc. Appeal against the order declining injunction before the said appellate court. 3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner prevented by sufficient cause from putting in his appearance before the trial court as on 6th July, 1995. Immediately after he became aware of the fact that the matter has been dismissed for non-prosecution, the application for restoration of the suit was filed on 23.4.1996, which came to be dismissed alongwith the application u/s Limitation Act on the same day. 4. Immediately after he became aware of the fact that the matter has been dismissed for non-prosecution, the application for restoration of the suit was filed on 23.4.1996, which came to be dismissed alongwith the application u/s Limitation Act on the same day. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prima facie, I am of the view that since once the court had taken note of the fact that the case was transferred from the court of MJM, Nagar to ADJ Deeg, basically the first date of appearance before the learned appellate court, the plaintiff's counsel was prevented from putting his appearance before the said court on the ground that he has no knowledge of such transfer. 5. Without expressing any opinion on merits, since the matter being decided finally, I deem it appropriate that the suit be restored to its original number. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.8.97 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deeg is quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court (ADJ, Deeg) on 15.4.2000. No order as to costs.Revision Allowed. *******