Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant under Order 43 rule 1 (c)of the CPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 4. 4. 96 passed by the IXth addl. District Judge, Bhopal in M. J. C. No. 6/95, whereby its application filed under order 9 rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of Civil Original suit No. 22-B/91 dismissed in default on dated 5. 7. 95, has been dismissed. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the aforesaid application under Order 9 rule 9 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the appellant for restoration of the aforesaid COS No. 22-B/91 contending that on dated 16. 5. 95 the presiding officer of the court was not on duty, on which the case was adjourned for recording the evidence on 5th of July,1995. As per further averments, on 6. 5. 95, the Officer in-charge of the case was busy in some board meeting, hence he deputed to Account Officer Shri Nema to note the next date. On such instructions, he received the information from the counsel that the date 5. 7. 95 has been fixed for recording the evidence. On such date, the applicants counsel was busy in some other cases before the different courts of Bhopal. The number and description of such cases along with the name of the courts are also mentioned in the aforesaid application, hence he could not reach to attend the aforesaid case upto 4. 00 P. M and on reaching to attend the case at 4 O Clock, it was known that the same has been dismissed in default. So far, non appearance of the Officer in-charge of the case is concerned, it is stated that he was on tour between 2nd July to 6th July, for which the intimation was also sent to the counsel through letter dated 6. 7. 05, stating the reasons for which he could not come and attend the case. With these averments, the petition for restoration of the aforesaid suit was made. The same is also supported by the affidavit of Shri S. A. Hassan. ( 3. ) IN reply of the respondents, the averments of the appellants application are denied. 7. 05, stating the reasons for which he could not come and attend the case. With these averments, the petition for restoration of the aforesaid suit was made. The same is also supported by the affidavit of Shri S. A. Hassan. ( 3. ) IN reply of the respondents, the averments of the appellants application are denied. The cause mentioned in it, is neither genuine nor sufficient for restoration of the suit and prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. ( 4. ) ON consideration, the trial court without extending any opportunity for adducing the evidence to the parties in support of their case, dismissed the application only on the basis of the affidavits of the parties, on which the appellant has come forward to this court with this appeal. ( 5. ) SHRI Avinash Patel, counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order saying that the same has been passed by the trial court without extending any opportunity for adducing the evidence to the appellant. Thus, mere on this ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. So far merits are concerned,he said that inspite sufficient proof on record that on account of sufficient cause the OIC of the appellant could not appear in the case on such date of dismissal, the same was not considered with proper approach and his application has been dismissed under wrong premises. He firstly prayed for setting aside the impugned order and restoration of the suit and in alternative he prayed for remitting back the matter to the trial court to decide afresh after holding inquiry by extending the opportunity for adducing the evidence to the parties by allowing this appeal. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri OM Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent by justifying the impugned order said that in view of the available affidavits of the parties on record, it was not necessary for the trial court to record the evidence. He further said that the appellant has failed to prove the sufficient cause for restoration of the suit. In the lack of any admissible evidence in that regard, the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 7. He further said that the appellant has failed to prove the sufficient cause for restoration of the suit. In the lack of any admissible evidence in that regard, the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel, I have carefully gone through the record of the MJC as well as the original suit and also perused the impugned order. The aforesaid civil suit was filed on behalf of the applicant for recovery of rs. . 2,31,83. 21 and the same was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the official of the appellant and its counsel on dated 5. 7. 95, on which the impugned application under Order 9 rule 9 of the CPC was filed on dated 25. 7. 95 within thirty days. Although by filing the reply of the same, the averments of it, are denied by the respondent. ( 8. ) IT is apparent fact on record that before passing the impugned order, the opportunity to adduce the evidence was not given to either of the parties by the trial court. Even the parties were not asked in this regard as appears from the proceedings of trial court. On earlier occasion while dealing the case under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC in the matter of Madhukar Vs. Ramesh-1993 (1)MPJR SN 27, this court has observed as under : " It has next been argued that in view of the fact that the averments made by the landlord (applicant)were denied by the present applicant (non-applicant) the restoration could not be ordered without holding an enquiry. Some cases of this Court have been cited in support of the aforesaid argument, wherein it has been held that if the fact averred showing the sufficient cause for non-appearance are in controversy, then the restoration should not be ordered without recording evidence. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid principle laid down by this Court. " Although, in the aforesaid case considering the affidavit of the counsel, by holding that there is no issue requiring any enquiry, the case was restored but in the case at hand, neither any affidavit of the counsel is on record, nor the matter is to be considered on the basis of any affidavit of the counsel. " Although, in the aforesaid case considering the affidavit of the counsel, by holding that there is no issue requiring any enquiry, the case was restored but in the case at hand, neither any affidavit of the counsel is on record, nor the matter is to be considered on the basis of any affidavit of the counsel. On the contrary, there is a controversy between the parties regarding the grounds of restoration of the suit. ( 9. ) SO far the case in the matter of Suresh alias Pappu Vs. Vidhi Chandra dharamshala and others-2002 (1) MPHT-268 cited on behalf of the respondent is concerned, the same was decided considering the circumstance that inspite extending the opportunity to lead the evidence, the concerned applicant did not produce any evidence and the case was decided. But in the present case as per proceedings of the trial court no such opportunity to lead the evidence was given to the parties, hence, the aforesaid cited case being distinguishable is not helping to the respondent. ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that whenever facts stated by one party, are denied by the other party, in the matter of restoration of the suit or setting aside the ex-parte decree, the opportunity to adduce the evidence should be extended to the parties and after appreciation of such evidence the case should be adjudicated. In the case at hand, it is apparent on record that such procedure was not followed by the trial court. In such circumstances, there is no option except to remand the matter after setting aside the impugned order to the trial court with appropriate directions to decide afresh after recording the evidence of the parties. ( 11. ) IT is settle proposition of the law that the person should not be unheard. He must be extended the sufficient opportunity to prove his case before passing any order against him as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India- AIR 1978 SC 597 in which it was held as under : 57. . . . . . . . although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature". . . . . . . . although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature". The principle of audi alteram partem which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58. We may commence. . . . . . . . . . natural justice in the field of administrative law. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke of this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham club:. . . . . . . . . The inquiry must, therefore, always be: does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected? 59. Now, if this be the test of applicability of the doctrine of natural justice, there can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for this purpose. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice, or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 12. ) UNDER the aforesaid premises, by allowing this appeal in part, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to adjudicate the same after extending the opportunity to the parties for adducing the evidence and on appreciation of such evidence. The parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on 30. 4. 08 for holding the aforesaid proceedings and the trial court is directed to take endeavor to conclude such proceedings on or before 30. 11. 08 under intimation to this court. There shall be no order as to the cost. ( 13. The parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on 30. 4. 08 for holding the aforesaid proceedings and the trial court is directed to take endeavor to conclude such proceedings on or before 30. 11. 08 under intimation to this court. There shall be no order as to the cost. ( 13. ) THE appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.