JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The plaintiff in Title Suit No.11 of 1993 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (SD), Keonjhar challenges the order dated 9th May, 2001 rejecting MJC No.35 of 1998 filed by him under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default. 2. Admittedly the Title Suit which was one for partition had been posted to 3.7.1998 for hearing. On the said date in the first hour the plaintiff sought adjournment through his counsel on the ground that the latter was ill. The said petition was rejected and the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 2.00 p.m. that day. At 2.00 p.m. as no counsel appeared for the plaintiff the suit was dismissed for default. 3. To prove his stand that his counsel was ill, the plain¬tiff got two witnesses examined and exhibited three documents. The defendants resisted the prayer of the plaintiff for restora¬tion of the suit on the ground that the plea of illness of the counsel was blatantly false. They got one witness examined in support of their stand that the counsel for the plaintiff was quite hale and hearty and he had filed Haziras on the relevant date in other cases. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents further submitted that in consonance with the Code of Civil Procedure engagement of counsel in another Court or his illness could not be a ground for adjournment of a case, unless of course the plaintiff proves that there was no sufficient time to engage any other counsel. According to the learned counsel, the evidence led in the MJC read as a whole would reveal that the suit was dis¬missed for deliberate laches of the plaintiff and it is a fit case where the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court. 5. Mr. A. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand submits that in fact the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the Court below was ill and a time petition was filed before the Court in the first hour, but then Haziras were filed in other cases which were not ready for hearing. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pe¬rused the records. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pe¬rused the records. There was no reason for the Court below to presume that a learned counsel who was an officer of the Court would seek adjournment of the suit falsely taking a plea of his illness. Even otherwise, in the first hour the Court being satis¬fied did not take up hearing of the suit. The object of deciding a suit on merit is to avoid multiplicity of litigations. The suit being one for partition, in all fitness of things it should have been decided on merit so as to avoid multiplicity of future liti¬gations. Considering all these facts, this Court allows the Misc.Appeal, sets aside the impugned order and directs restora¬tion of the suit to file subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000.00 (two thousand) within six weeks hence to the respon¬dents to mitigate the prejudice caused to them, which shall be received by their learned counsel on their behalf. This Court further directs the Court below to dispose of the suit as expe¬ditiously as possible, preferably within six months hence. Misc. Appeal allowed.