JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed u/Or. 9 Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the suit. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from not appearing in the Court on 25.10.1996, and thereafter he fell ill and after recovery he contacted the lawyer and learnt that the suit has been dismissed as such the delay was required to be condoned. It is also contended that the suit is a suit for specific performance of the contract and relates to immovable property, the suit had already been transferred thrice. and thus, the petitioner has already I suffered substantial harassment in engaging the lawyers again and again at the transferred place, as such, the learned trial Court should have restored the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available with the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, along with the revision, has filed the certified copies, of the plaint, application dated 10.4.1997, affidavit in support thereof, so also the reply filed to the application (filed u/Or. 9 Rule 4 and under section 5 of the Limitation Act). It is insignificant to note that the papers filed by the petitioner do not include any affidavit of the non-petitioner to support the reply. Therefore, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner was pointedly put, as to whether, in support of the reply any affidavit has been filed by the non-petitioner and it is clearly given out that only reply has been filed and not the affidavit. In that view of 15 the matter, having perused the applications filed u/Or. 9 Rule 4 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that the petitioner has clearly come with is about his lawyer being required to go out of station on the date of hearing fixed, and to take care of the situation, the lawyer having sent a communication to him, which communication having not been received by the petitioner and therefore, he could not appear on the date of hearing. Likewise, it is also alleged that the petitioner had fallen ill, and after recovery fen he met the lawyer on 30.3.1997, it was disclosed to him that the suit has already been dismissed in default. These averments are duly supported by the affidavit of the petitioner and, as noticed above, no affidavit of the 25 non-petitioner has been filed to controvert this averments. The pleadings taken in the reply are general and vague, intended simply, to purportedly deny the averments of the application, and even do not disclose any such positive facts, on the basis of which, the averments of the petitioner could be disbelieved. In that view of the matter, coupled with the fact that the suit 30 relates to immovable property, in my view the learned trial Court was in jurisdictional error in declining to restore the suit. In any case, the suit was required to be restored subject to payment of substantial costs. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the petitioner's application filed u/s or. 9 Rule 4 CPC so also the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed, and the suit is directed to be restored to its original number subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the defendants. Since the suit is already very old, the learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the main suit.Revision Along with Application for Condonation of Delay Allowed. *******