JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent and waives notice of Rule. WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioner-bank had advanced a loan to the respondent-society and the bank had to recover the amount from the respondent. The respondent filed Lavad Case No. 593 of 1995 before the Board of Nominee, Vadodara for permanent injunction against the alleged mismanagement by the agent of the petitioner-bank. In the proceedings of the Lavad Suit, which was for injunction, an application-Exh. 53 came to be filed and a purshis was submitted for granting installments for 20 years. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-bank preferred Revision Application No. 124 of 1997 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the revision application for default. The petitioner preferred Restoration Application No. 28 of 1999 before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that since on the date of the matter, it was not recorded in the diary of the learned Advocate of the applicant, he could not remain present before the Tribunal and, therefore, the revision application has been dismissed. It was submitted that there was a genuine reason and the petitioners were prevented by sufficient reason for not remaining present at the time when the revision application was taken up for hearing, and hence, it was requested to recall the order and to restore the revision application on file. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides passed the order dated 10/04/2000 whereby the restoration application is dismissed and it is that order which is under challenge before this Court. ( 4 ) MR. B. S. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that since the Advocate of the petitioner could not remain present on account of the ground mentioned in the restoration application, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient cause. Mr. Patel submitted that on merits, there was a very good case so far as the bank is concerned and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the restoration application. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Mr. Baiju Joshi submitted that there was a resolution passed by the bank itself in the meeting dated 4/08/1997 and pursuant to the said resolution, the respondent-society has also paid Rs. 30 lacs. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Mr. Baiju Joshi submitted that there was a resolution passed by the bank itself in the meeting dated 4/08/1997 and pursuant to the said resolution, the respondent-society has also paid Rs. 30 lacs. He, therefore, submitted that when a settlement was arrived at and it was already acted upon, the bank could not back out from the same. At this stage, Mr. B. S. Patel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid resolution was passed, but approval of the said resolution is not granted by the authority and as a result thereof, the said resolution has not to come into operation. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that in any event, the Tribunal has not rejected the restoration application on the ground that there is some settlement arrived at between the parties and, therefore, the restoration application should not be granted. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has found that there was no sufficient cause shown on behalf of the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal for the absence on the day when the revision application was called out for hearing. The ground mentioned in the restoration application is regarding the genuine mistake on the part of the Advocate and in any event, without entering into much details regarding the sufficiency of the cause shown for the absence, this Court is of the view that on merits, there was an arguable case on behalf of the petitioner and when there was a substantial case on merits, the Tribunal ought not to have cut short the matter by rejecting the restoration application. Even otherwise also, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient cause for not remaining present. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10/04/2000 is illegal on the face of it so far as not allowing the restoration application is concerned. At the most, the Tribunal could have awarded for payment of costs. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10/04/2000 is illegal on the face of it so far as not allowing the restoration application is concerned. At the most, the Tribunal could have awarded for payment of costs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that when the petitioner-bank has remained absent and on account of the same, the respondent should not be made to suffer at least so far as burdening the liability of the litigation is concerned. ( 8 ) IN the result, the order dated 10th April, 2000 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside on condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 as costs to the respondent-society. After the cost is paid, the Tribunal shall take up the main Revision Application for hearing on merits and will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the amount of costs is not deposited by the petitioner to the respondent-society within a period of one month from today, the Tribunal will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. THE petition is partly allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. .