R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. D. Singh, holding brief of Sri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) PERUSED the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent on face of record that petitioner has filed a suit under Section 229b of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 before respondent No. 2 in which contesting respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The aforesaid suit was dismissed in default on 8. 2. 1994 and also on 11. 1. 1996. The aforesaid dismissal in default orders were set aside by the learned trial court on showing sufficient cause by the petitioner which prevented him to remain present when the case was called on for hearing. It is evident that the present suit was again dismissed in default on 18. 3. 1999 and a restoration application was moved by the petitioner within five days, i. e. , on 23. 3. 1999. The aforesaid restoration application has been rejected by respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 30. 8. 1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 30. 8. 1999 passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No. 1 which too has been dismissed on 14. 2. 2001, a copy whereof has been filed and marked as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) A close scrutiny of the orders impugned revealed that the restoration application was moved within lime on 23. 3. 1999 to recall the order for dismissal in default dated 18. 3. 1999 which has been dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that earlier the suit was dismissed in default on 8. 2. 1994 and 11. 1. 1996, therefore, the present restoration application moved within time is liable to be rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid approach of Sub-Divisional Officer. Swar District Rampur-respondent No. 2 and the additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad-respondent No. 1 is perverse inasmuch as no prudent man can arrive on a conclusion upon which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have arrived in the present case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid approach of Sub-Divisional Officer. Swar District Rampur-respondent No. 2 and the additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad-respondent No. 1 is perverse inasmuch as no prudent man can arrive on a conclusion upon which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have arrived in the present case. ( 6 ) IT is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of dismissal for default dated 8. 2. 1994 and the order dated 11. 1. 1996 dismissing the suit in default had already been recalled by the learned trial court on showing sufficient cause by the petitioner which prevented him to appear when the case was called on for hearing. I am of the view that once the orders dated 8. 2. 1994 and 11. 1. 1996 were recalled by the trial court after recording a finding relating to sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner to remain present when the case was called on for hearing, there was no occasion to reject the present restoration application dated 23. 3. 1999 which was moved within time to recall the order dated 18. 3. 1999 on fresh ground of illness supported with Medical Certificate. The order of dismissal in default dated 8. 2. 1994 and 11. 1. 1996 have been already recalled by the learned trial court after being satisfied about sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for his absence on the aforesaid dates, therefore, these orders cannot be said to be relevant consideration for rejecting the present restoration application dated 23. 3. 1999 without investigating the cause of illness shown by the petitioner supported with medical Certificate for his absence on 18. 3. 1999, on which date his suit was again dismissed in default. ( 7 ) IT is well to remember that courts of law are respected by litigant public and the public in general because they are capable to advance justice between the parties and they are expected to take justice-oriented approach. It is to be imbibed that courts of law are not respected because they are capable to legalise injustice on technical grounds. Here in the present case if the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed to stand, it would tantamount legalising injustice and allowing the substantial justice to escape. It is to be imbibed that courts of law are not respected because they are capable to legalise injustice on technical grounds. Here in the present case if the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed to stand, it would tantamount legalising injustice and allowing the substantial justice to escape. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents is asked to demonstrate before this Court what benefit the petitioner would derive in dismissal of his suit in default in the present, ( 8 ) AS a result of aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 30. 8. 1999 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Swar, district Rampur-respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 14. 2. 2001 passed by Additional commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad-respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) are hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to respondent No. 2 to decide the restoration application of the petitioner dated 23. 3. 1999 in accordance with law on merit without being influenced with the earlier dismissal in default orders dated 8. 2. 1994 and 11. 1. 1996, which have already been recalled. .