JUDGMENT S.N.Srivastava, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.9.1993, passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the application 3C to recall the order dated 10.7.1992 dismissing the Misc. Case No. 15 of 1992 in default. 2. JAI Chand filed a Suit No. 587 of 1987 in the Court of Munsif, Muzaffarnagar for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed on 11.5.1980. Jagdish Prasad and others filed Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1984. This appeal was dismissed in default on 16.10.1985. A restoration application for restoring the appeal was rejected in Misc. Case No. 18 of 1988. During the pendency of that application, Jagdish Prasad died and his heirs filed an application for substitution on 6.3.1990 which was allowed but some of the heirs of Jagdish Prasad withdrew the restoration application in Case No. 18 of 1988 on 31.1.1992. The petitioner's application for impleadment was allowed. The petitioner filed restoration application on 6.4.1992 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 16.10.1985 for restoration of the appeal. This application was registered at Misc. Case No. 15 of 1992. 3. THE petitioner could not appear on 10.7.1992, i.e., date fixed in the Misc. Case No. 15 of 1992. THE application was dismissed in default on 10.7.1992. He moved an application on 10.8.1992 for recalling the said order dated 10.7.1992. THE ground mentioned in the application was that the applicant came to the Court late. On 10.7.1992, on enquiry, the peon of the Court informed that steps were required to be taken. Hence he entrusted his counsel to take steps. This application is supported by an affidavit. THE appellate court dismissed the restoration application on 3.9.1993 and refused to restore the Misc. Case No. 15 of 1992. Though no counter-affidavit was filed by the opposite parties. Affidavit filed by the petitioner was un-controverted. In the writ petition also notices were issued. Opposite Parties are represented through Sri V. S. Chaudhary learned counsel. Inspite of the fact that Sri V. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party has filed vakalatnama on 25.1.1994 but no counter-affidavit was filed. 4. SRI K. K. Sangloo, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that application for restoration was supported by uncontroverted affidavit. The opposite party did not file any counter-affidavit denying the facts stated in the affidavit. Inspite of the fact that Sri V. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party has filed vakalatnama on 25.1.1994 but no counter-affidavit was filed. 4. SRI K. K. Sangloo, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that application for restoration was supported by uncontroverted affidavit. The opposite party did not file any counter-affidavit denying the facts stated in the affidavit. It was not open to the appellate court to ignore uncontroverted affidavit and dismiss the restoration application. Sri V. S. Chaudhary did not controvert the fact that no counter-affidavit was filed either before appellate court or before the High Court, but says that the order passed by appellate court rejecting restoration application is liable to maintained. 5. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the respective argument, I am of the view that the order dated 3.9.1993 passed by appellate court is liable to be set aside. The appellant has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date fixed. The order dated 10.7.1992 is also liable to be set aside and the Misc. Case No. 15 of 1992 is liable to be restored to its original number. 6. NORMALLY in case of un-controverted affidavit relating to a fact should not be disbelieved unless there is any other material available on record to the contrary. In the present case, no other material is available on record to the effect that averments made in affidavit before the lower court or in the writ petition are incorrect. Opposite party has not given any material to show that fact stated in affidavit or in writ petition are not correct. My view is supported by following case law that uncontroverted affidavit on a fact shall normally be accepted. Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Janki Gupta and another, AIR 1962 All 407 ; in para 22 of this judgment it has been held that : "Here also the court below had before it a duly sworn affidavit of the pairokar of the plaintiff in support of his application and there was no counter-affidavit in traverse of the allegations contained in that affidavit. Under the circumstances it was not open to the Court to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff that he had brought his witness to the Court on 24.5.1956 shortly after the dismissal of the adjournment application." Prayag U. P. Nivesan Avas Avam Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. Faquir Chandra Mehrotra, 2001 (1) AWC 218 ; in para 9 of this judgment it has been held that : "In para 1 of the affidavit filed along with the restoration application, it has been asserted that the deponent is the Secretary of the Society (plaintiff) since last one year and is doing pairvi on behalf of the plaintiff which has not been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the defendant before the court below. Thus, the statement that Abhay Narain Pandey was the Secretary since last one year on the date of dismissal of the suit in default goes uncontroverted." Controller of Court of Ward, Kolhapur and another v. G. N. Ghorpade and others, AIR 1973 SC 627 . In para 12 of this judgment it has been held that : "There being thus no reply to the two special civil applications the High Court had to accept the statement made on affidavit by respondent I therein as prima facie evidence of his right to possession of the lands in question." 7. I find that the sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for his absence on 10.7.1992. He has given detailed facts in his affidavit. The opposite party did not dare to controvert the same either before the appellate court or before this Court. 8. THE appellate court did not consider un-controverted affidavit. THE reasons recorded by the appellate court for rejecting the application dated 10.7.1992 cannot be sustained in law. With the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.9.1998 and 10.7.1992 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, are quashed. The appellate court will now consider Misc. Application No. 15 of 1992 on merit at an early date.