JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2010 whereby his application filed under Order 14, Rule 19 CPC for restoration of the appeal has been dismissed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has profusely apologized to this Court for non-appearance of the counsel before the learned trial Court. Although the learned trial Court had directed the counsel to appear on 06.05.2010 at 8:30 AM, yet the counsel had appeared before the learned trial court at 8:35/8:40 AM. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that due to the slightest fault of the counsel, the appellant cannot be made to suffer. Since the battle is between the tenant and the landlady, since the livelihood of the appellant depends upon the shop where he is running his business, a liberal view should have been taken by the learned Judge. He further contends that the appeal should have been restored after imposition of a reasonable cost. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the battle has been going on between the landlady and the appellant for number of years. She is still waiting for the shop to be vacated. He further contends that the members of the Bar are duty bound to follow certain discipline. Since the counsel was unable to attend the Court at the appointed time, and since cogent reasons have been given in the impugned order, the impugned order should be upheld. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. Undoubtedly, the learned members of the Bar are duty bound to appear before the Court specially when a specific time has been given by the Court. However, since primary duty of the Court is to do justice between the parties, the court cannot afford to take a pedantic view of the situation. Since, the livelihood of the appellant is concerned, a liberal view should have been taken by the learned Judge. Of course, the learned Judge would have been within his power to impose a reasonable cost and to restore the case. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court directs the learned counsel for the appellant to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Nirmala Devi Jain on the next date date of hearing. Of course, the learned Judge would have been within his power to impose a reasonable cost and to restore the case. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court directs the learned counsel for the appellant to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Nirmala Devi Jain on the next date date of hearing. The order dated 17.07.2010 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the case is restored to its original number. 7. With these observations, this appeal is, hereby, allowed.Appeal allowed. *******