JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This Civil Revision arises out against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge-I (Junior Division), Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004, arising out of Original Suit No. 137 of 2000, Pritam alias Sitara Hijra Vs. Rajni Hijra and others. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerged out from the record are that an Original Suit No. 137 of 2000. Pritam alias Sitara Hijra Vs. Rajni Hijra and others, was pending in the court of F.T.C. II, Dehradun, in which the date was fixed as 14.10.2003 The counsel for the plaintiff could not appear before the court on account of his ailment. However, the matter was decided exparte on 3.1.2004. 3. An application was filed by Mahfooz, pairokar of the plaintiff to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 3.1.2004 which was objected by the defendant/revisionist before the court below. 4. The learned court below after having considered the material available on record and hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, was pleased to allow the application on cost of Rs. 500/-. The court below set aside the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2004 in Original Suit No. 137 of 2000 and restored the case to its original number, vide order dated 31.05.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this revision has been preferred by the defendant/revisionist before this court under Section 115 of C.P.C. 5. Heard Shri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Km. Mamta Joshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the application filed by so, called pairokar, Mahfooz on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party, Pritam alias Sitara Hijra, was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order III Rule 1 & 2, read with Order IX Rule 9 CPC. He has submitted that Mahfooz, who had moved the application before the court below, was neither a party in the suit nor was having any power of attorney on behalf of plaintiff to do the pairavi in the case. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has made a rival submission by arguing that the court below was justified in allowing the application and setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 3.1.2004. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has made a rival submission by arguing that the court below was justified in allowing the application and setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 3.1.2004. He has also submitted that Mahfooz being pairokar of the plaintiff had an authority to move the application for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree. He has also submitted that the plaintiff herself has also filed an affidavit before the court below in support of the application filed by Mahfooz for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited following decisions in support of his contention:- (i) AIR 1965 SC 295 (V 52 C 53), Suraj Rattan Thirani and others vs.Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd. And others. (ii) 2001 (44) ALR 719 (Supreme Court), State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh. (iii) Air 1974 SC 471 (V 61 C 90), Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and others. (iv) AHC 2000 (41) p-729, Vimla Devi Gaur Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and others. (v) AIR 2000 SC 1165, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and others. (vi) AIR 1995 SC 2372, M/s Gujrat Bottling Co. Ltd. And others Vs. Coca Cola Company and others. (vii) AIR 1961 SC 808 (V 48 C 129), C. Mohammad Yunus vs. Syed Unnissa and others. (viii) AIR 1970 SC 1059 (V 67 C 223), Sidramappa Vs. Rajeshetty and others. (ix) AIR 1930 Privy Council 270, Mt. Bolo Vs. Mt. Kolkan and others. (x) AIR 1977 SC 2149, The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh and others. 9. I have gone through all the citation filed before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist and I am of the view that none of the aforesaid decisions is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In view of the provisions of Order III Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, the application can be filed either by the party or his counsel or his agent. In the instant case, Mahfooz who is claiming himself to be the pairokar of the plaintiff, has been identified by the counsel of the plaintiff as is evident from the affidavit filed by Mahfooz before the court below. 11. In the instant case, Mahfooz who is claiming himself to be the pairokar of the plaintiff, has been identified by the counsel of the plaintiff as is evident from the affidavit filed by Mahfooz before the court below. 11. The decision (Fariduddin and others vs. II Additional District Judge, Varanasi & others cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention that the application was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order III Rule 1 & 2 of the, is also not applicable as I have already indicated above that Mahfooz being pairokar of the plaintiff/opposite party was identified by the counsel of the plaintiff as is evident from the affidavit of Mahfooz, which has been filed by the revisionist as Annexure-11 to the affidavit before this court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention towards the application and affidavit of the plaintiff, Pritam alias Sitara Hijra, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 by the revisionist before this court and has submitted that the plaintiff herself also filed an affidavit for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree, therefore, it cannot be said that it is the case in which only Mahfooz, pairokar of the plaintiff moved an application for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree. 13. This court in a case reported in 2004 (1) ARC 72, Satya Singh Kandari and another vs. Amber Kukreti, has held that where the application under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC is filed for restoration of the case, the Court should not take a very narrow and rigid view and technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of dispensation of justice. This Court while observing above has relied on the following decisions of Allahabad High Court:- (i) Surendra Kumar vs. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, 1989 (2) ARC 262. (ii) Girdhari Lal vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Agra, 1999 (1) ARC 167. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 31-5-2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge-I (Junior Division), Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004, arising out of Original Suit No. 137 of 2000 is hereby confirmed.