Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of valid service of notice, no body appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. This revision application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to set aside the order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default. 3. The petitioner examined one witness, namely, his karpardaz Baidyanath Sao, who stated that on the date hazri was filed and he was standing in the varandah and when the case was called out, he went to call his advocate and before his advocate reached the court, the case was dismissed. 4. The court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the suit on the ground that he had not stated about the filing of hazri. It is a material omission. The karpardaz of the petitioner specifically stated that he was standing outside the court and when the case was called out he went to call his advocate. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has shown negligence in prosecuting the case. 5. In that view of the matter, the court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the Money Suit No. 9 of 1993 which was dismissed for default is restored to its original file. 6. In the result, this revision application is allowed.