Order Heard both the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this civil revision, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 6.4.2005 passed by learned Sub-Judge 1, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005 whereby learned Court below has refused to restore Title Suit No. 260 of 2004 which was dismissed for not paying Court Fee. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 260 of 2004 and had to pay Court Fee and meet the other defects. It has been stated that in the meanwhile the wife of the petitioner's counsel fell seriously ill and for her treatment had to go to C.M.C., Vellore. In order to attend her the petitioner's counsel had also to go to Vellore. When he came back he was informed that plaintiff's suit was dismissed by order dated 27.5.2005 due to non-payment of Court Fee. The plaintiff, thereafter filed Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Ranchi praying for restoration of Title Suit No. 260 of 2004. It was specifically stated in the said petition that the Court Fee could not be deposited within time as learned counsel engaged by the plaintiff had gone to Vellore for treatment of his wife and there was no deliberate laches or intentional delay in depositing the Court Fee. Learned Sub-Judge, without considering the said reasons, had dismissed the said petition mechanically by the impugned order. 4. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had engaged his counsel and was depending on him and learned counsel had to go to Vellore for treatment of his wife and the said circumstance was beyond human control. Learned Court below should not have taken pedantic approach and should not have dismissed the miscellaneous case. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below had not exercised its jurisdiction properly and legally and has acted against the demand of justice. 5. Mr. Learned Court below should not have taken pedantic approach and should not have dismissed the miscellaneous case. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below had not exercised its jurisdiction properly and legally and has acted against the demand of justice. 5. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that the reason assigned by the petitioner in the Court below was not fully supported by the document and the Court below has taken into consideration the said aspect but found that the medical document produced before the Court does not go to show that the petitioner's counsel was forced to leave for Vellore for the treatment of his wife. Learned counsel submitted that there was no cogent explanation for not depositing Court Fee within the stipulated time and the Court below has rightly rejected the plaint for want of proper Court Fee. The order is sound and has been passed legally and there is no infirmity in the order. 6. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that -the Court below has not taken into consideration that the petitioner had engaged his counsel to attend and to take proper steps. It was specifically mentioned in the petition that the petitioner's counsel had to go to Vellore for treatment of his wife. The reason assigned in the petition clearly goes to show that there was no intentional delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, who is a rural litigant. Learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the reasons assigned by the petitioner in his petition and acted in perfunctory manner in refusing the petitioner's prayer for restoration of the suit and dismissing the Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005. The impugned order suffers from the vice of improper exercise of jurisdiction and is unsustainable in law. The order dated 6.4.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005 is set aside. This civil revision succeeds. Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005 is allowed. Title Suit No. 260 of 2004 is restored to the original stage.