ORDER M.L. Singhal, J. - Mr. Mahajan appears for the LRs of late Parmanand alias Pamman Dass respondent No. 3. He brings to the notice of the court that late Dittu Ram respondent left behind him LRs, namely, Raj Kumar etc. Registry shall make necessary correction in the memo of parties. In support of the fact that Om Parkash Sethi, Shakuntla, Janaki Devi, Sushma Rani and Asha Rani are the LRs of late Dittu Ram, he has brought on record the affidavit of Om Parkash Sethi. This affidavit be taken on record. 2. Mr. Mahajan says that his clients are the only contesting party. 3. Heard. 4. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed in default. This order reads as follows :- "Present : None The case has now been called at 3.45 PM. Neither the plaintiff nor any body also has appeared on his behalf. As such, this suit is dismissed in default on account of nonappearance of the plaintiff or his counsel." 5. The plaintiff made an application for its restoration which was also dismissed in default on 16.9.87. The said application was also dismissed in default under order 9 rule 8 Civil Procedure Code He moved yet an application on 12.12.87 for setting aside the order dated 16.9.87 praying that his application for restoration of suit which was dismissed in default be restored. On the said application, the Subordinate Judge framed issues. After trial of that application, he declined that application and refused to restore the application made for restoration of the suit which had been dismissed in default. 6. Aggrieved from the whole gamut which has taken place, the plaintiff has come up in revision. Plaintiffs suit should have been restored without any notice of the application for restoration to the other party as the plaintiffs suit was dismissed in default on the very first day it was instituted when the court had not yet issued process to the defendant and the court was yet to apply its mind whether the plaint was disclosing or was not disclosing cause of action. Court should not have been that hasty in dismissing the suit in default. The court should have given notice to the counsel/plaintiff calling upon him to appear and state whether he had to prosecute the suit particularly when the suit had been presented on 21.5.84 by one Shri Satpal. 7. Court should not have been that hasty in dismissing the suit in default. The court should have given notice to the counsel/plaintiff calling upon him to appear and state whether he had to prosecute the suit particularly when the suit had been presented on 21.5.84 by one Shri Satpal. 7. By dismissing the suit in default in the absence of both the parties, the learned Sub Judge has disclosed ignorance of the elementary principles which govern the trial of civil suits. He should have known that for restoring a suit dismissed in default, there is no limitation. He has disclosed lack of knowledge so far this aspect goes. Keeping in view the unfortunate state of affairs which have afflicted the plaintiff, the suit is ordered to be restored to its file against its original number. 8. Revision allowed. 9. Mr. D.R. Mahajan says that under the orders of this Court passed in this revision, there was a restraint on his clients from alienating the property. Learned trial court will examine afresh whether the imposition of that restraint was or was not proper without allowing itself to be influenced by the restraint imposed by this court. Since some of the defendants have died, the plaintiff will put in the plaint keeping in view that they are survived by their LRs and he will bring them on record of the amended plaint. 10. Parties shall appear before the learned trial court on 1.9.2000. Order accordingly.