J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant had filed two suits against the respondents for permanent injunction being suit no. 554/91 (M-70/2004) and another suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and for Mandatory Injunction being suit no. 71/2004 In the suit no. 554/91, the appellant also filed an application under order 39 Rule 2-A CPC being M-4/92 (new no. M-72/2004 ). The suits were dismissed due to non-appearance of the counsel for the plaintiff / appellant. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed in default. This judgment would dispose of all the three above mentioned appeals bearing no. RSA 318/2005, RSA No. 322/2005 and RSA No. 323/2005. ( 2 ) THE following substantial questions of law in each of the two appeal preferred against the dismissal of the suits in default are formulated :- 1]. Whether there were sufficient grounds for non- appearance of the plaintiff/appellant on 29. 10. 2004" 2]. Whether there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the First Appellate Authority" ( 3 ) I have heard the counsel for the parties on merits as well. Both the suits of the appellant were dismissed in default on 29. 10. 2004 separate applications were moved for restoration of the suits on 24. 11. 2004 The trial Court dismissed the applications for restoration of the suits on 12. 05. 2005. ( 4 ) DUE to the oversight, the counsel for the appellant / plaintiff had filed separate CMs in respect of both the above said cases on 01. 07. 2005 instead of filing the appeals. When this defect came to the knowledge of the counsel for the appellant he withdrew both the CMs on 6th / 7th July, 2005. ( 5 ) SEPARATE appeals were filed in respect of both the impugned orders on 11. 07. 2005 before the Senior Sub-Judge. The Senior Sub-Judge dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by time. The appellant had moved applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining all these facts before the First Appellate Court but the same found no favour with it. Both the appeals were dismissed. Consequently, now the second appeal has been preferred in respect of restoration of the suits and restoration of the contempt application. The appellant had moved applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining all these facts before the First Appellate Court but the same found no favour with it. Both the appeals were dismissed. Consequently, now the second appeal has been preferred in respect of restoration of the suits and restoration of the contempt application. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that previously on two occasions the appellant did not appear on 31. 05. 2004 and 09. 09. 2004 and the appellant has failed to show any cause for non-appearance on those days as well. Counsel for the respondent opined that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to appear and pursue his both the cases and the contempt application but the needful was not done. It was pointed out that Secretary of the appellant society was present on 23. 11. 2004 but his affidavit was not filed. ( 7 ) I see no force in these arguments. The record reveals that counsel for the appellant had himself filed his own affidavit wherein it was explained that due to inadvertence he could not note down the next date correctly. Relevant paras of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 which is supported by advocate's affidavit are reproduced : "2. That inadvertently, the date 29. 10. 04 could not be noted down in Diary, so the counsel for plaintiff failed to appear before this Hon'ble Court. The witness was to be summoned by the Defendant. 3. That counsel for the plaintiff, undertakes to appear himself and will call and official of society whenever their presence is required. 4. That on 23. 11. 04, the secretary of society came to court and enquired about the date. Thereafter, the counsel for the plaintiff revealed that the case could not be noted down in the diary and on the same day on enquiry from the staff of this court, it transpired that the case was dismissed in default on 29. 10. 04. " ( 8 ) THE affidavit filed by the learned counsel is sufficient. The mere fact that the Secretary of the appellant society did not file any affidavit does not cut much ice because his evidence/affidavit is not material. To my mind sufficient cause for restoration of suit stands established. 10. 04. " ( 8 ) THE affidavit filed by the learned counsel is sufficient. The mere fact that the Secretary of the appellant society did not file any affidavit does not cut much ice because his evidence/affidavit is not material. To my mind sufficient cause for restoration of suit stands established. The absence of the plaintiff / appellant or his counsel can be met by payment of adequate costs. ( 9 ) THE First Appellate Authority should have allowed the appeal in view of the circumstances explained above. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, I allow both the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the lower court and restore both the suits subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- each as costs total being Rs. 10,000/-, out of which 50% be deposited with Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, UCO Bank account No. 48852 and balance 50% be given to learned counsel for the respondent. ( 10 ) PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 01. 08. 2007. ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the appellant states that he will withdraw the contempt application before the lower court.