JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against order dated 7.8.1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner (for brevity, the plaintiff) for restoration of his suit which was dismissed in default on 27.8.1979 by Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal. The Sub Judge had earlier dismissed the application of the plaintiff for restoration of his suit on 19.9.1980. 2. The facts necessary to solve the controversy arising in this revision are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for grant of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents (for brevity, the defendants) in respect of agricultural land measuring 30 bighas and 13 biswas situated in village Taranwali, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra which was jointly purchased by them in the open auction. The parties had adduced almost all their evidence and the case had come to the stage of rebuttal and arguments on 27.8.1979. However, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default because his counsel was busy in some other Court. On 28.8.1979 i.e. the very next day, the plaintiff moved an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for restoration of the suit to its original number. The trial Court issued notice of the application which was opposed by the defendants resulting into the framing of two issues which are as under :- "1. Whether there were sufficient grounds for the plaintiff not to appear on 27.8.1979 ? OPA 2. Whether the case was not called up to 3.30 P.M., if so, to what effect ? OPA" 3. Both the issues were taken up together and it was concluded that on 27.8.1979, the case was called twice but on both the occasions neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had appeared in the Court. However, Watto Ram plaintiff has stated that on both the occasions, he was present and had gone to fetch his counsel. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff vide its order dated 19.9.1980. 4. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. Learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra took the view that there was no evidence on the record which may afford any legal justification for the absence of the plaintiff or his counsel. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff vide its order dated 19.9.1980. 4. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. Learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra took the view that there was no evidence on the record which may afford any legal justification for the absence of the plaintiff or his counsel. Another reason given by the learned Additional District Judge is that the application contained such allegations which have been proved to be false and there are contradictory statements made by the plaintiff and his counsel. The view of the learned Additional District Judge is reflected in paragraph 7 of his judgment dated 7.8.1981 which reads as under :- "After considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and going through the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot prevail. It is not the law of the country that by submitting application for restoration on the next date of the default, the suit would automatically be restored. In absence of any sufficient cause for the absence, the suit cannot be restored. There is no evidence on the file brought to my notice from which sufficient cause for the absence of the counsel or the appellant would be proved. Reading of the application would itself go to show that the plaintiff was not present and the application was submitted by the plaintiffs counsel. The case of the learned counsel in the application is that the case was called for the first time after 3.30 P.M. but this has been contradicted even by the statement of the appellant. The application for restoration submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff- appellant, with such like allegation which has been proved to be not true, cannot automatically be treated as sufficient cause or restoration. 1978 P.L.J. 259 would not apply to the facts of this case as in that case, the plaintiff failed to prove strictly cause for his non-appearance. In the case in hand there is total failure of proof. In 1981 C.L.J. (Civil) 187, the suit was dismissed at 2.30 P.M. but in the case in hand the suit was dismissed at 3.30 P.M. but it had earlier been called at 11 A.M. Therefore, that case would not be applicable to the facts of this case. In the case in hand there is total failure of proof. In 1981 C.L.J. (Civil) 187, the suit was dismissed at 2.30 P.M. but in the case in hand the suit was dismissed at 3.30 P.M. but it had earlier been called at 11 A.M. Therefore, that case would not be applicable to the facts of this case. 1978 P.L.R. 210 would not be applicable to this case as it has not been held that the application for restoration was not maintainable without the signatures of the plaintiff. In 1978 C.L.J. (Civil) 57, the appellants had examined clerk of court and three other witnesses including the guardian of the minor and the trial Court did not believe the statement of the guardian that he could not appear due to sudden illness and in these circumstances, it was held that ordinarily restoration of case dismissed in default should not be denied unless the party is guilty of a wilful default. In the case in hand, the evidence of the plaintiff is contrary to what has been submitted by his counsel in the application for restoration and, therefore, that case would not apply to the facts of this case." 5. Shri R.K. Battas, learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the plaintiff was present in the Court premises and he had gone to fetch his counsel when the case was called. He further submitted that the procedural laws are handmaid of justice and once the application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 8, Code of Civil procedure has been filed with diligence, then strict proof of sufficient cause of non-appearance by the plaintiff or his counsel should not be insisted. Shri Battas placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bishnu Bhagwan and others v. Bani Madho Saran and others, 1990 Civil Court Cases 111 and Buta Singh v. Puro and another, 1979 PLJ 259. In the case of Bishnu Bhagwan (supra), this Court made the observations which are applicable to the facts of the present case also and the same read as under :- "This has been repeatedly held by this Court that restoration of a suit dismissed in default should not be deemed simply because the plaintiffs have failed to prove strictly sufficient cause of their non-appearance. It was held in Buta Singh v. Puro and another, 1979 PLJ 259 that ordinarily if the application is made within limitation, the same had to be restored and for the negligence on behalf of a party the other party can be compensated with costs. Similar view was taken in Amar Singh minor etc. v. Bhajan Singh etc., 1978 PLR 103. Present is a case which shows that the Courts did not apply their judicial mind and acted in routine and that is why it took about nine years in the trial Court for disposing of this application for restoration and again five years in appeal. On the facts and circumstances it was a fit case to be restored immediately, on the basis of the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs. The view taken by the Courts below is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The Courts have thus acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned orders are set aside and the application for restoration is allowed with no order as to costs." 6. It is well settled that the procedural law is handmaid of justice and the procedure must bend before the justice. The plaintiff cannot gain anything by virtue of his absence. He had taken all possible steps necessary for prosecution of the case and was even present at the time of hearing. The rigid attitude adopted by both the Courts below is not consistent with the principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court. The Apex Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another, AIR 1976 SC 1177 has observed the importance of administration of substantial justice by ignoring the procedural technicalities. Their Lordships observed as under :- "We must always remember that processual law is not to be tyrant but a servant not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non-compliance, though procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. Where the non-compliance, though procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities." Similarly, in the case of Chinnammal and others v. P. Arumugham and another, 1990(1) SCC 513, the Apex Court has again remarked as under :- "It is well to remember that the Code of Civil Procedure is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible...." The Apex Court in the case of S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 observed as under :- "Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice." 7. Applying the aforementioned principle to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the application of the plaintiff should have been allowed. His suit has been kept pending for the last two decades. The approach adopted by both the Courts below can hardly be appreciated. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the application of the plaintiff for restoration of his suit at its original number is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs to be paid to the defendants. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.1.2002. I also deem it appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the proceedings in this case at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months. Revision allowed.