Sabhajeet Yadav, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.9.2000 passed by District Judge, Gorakhpur, contained in Annexure-5 of the writ petition, in Civil Revision No.167 of 1998, Ram Nain Vs. Audhesh Singh and another and orders dated 14.2.1997 and 25.7.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bansgaon, Gorakhpur. 3. It appears that an Original Suit No. 994 of 1993 was filed by petitioner against the defendants-respondents no. 3 and 4 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 28.9.1993 in favour of respondent no.4 and in the said suit an application for ad interim injunction was also moved. It appears that trial court has dismissed the suit on 14.2.1997 for want of prosecution. Against the dismissal of suit an application under Order 9 Rule 4 and section 151 C.P.C. was moved alongwith an application under section 5 of limitation Act for condoning the delay in moving said application. In the said application it was stated that on 14.2.1997 the suit was fixed for pairvi but due to illness of petitioner's mother, he could not do the pairvi and ultimately on 14.2.1997 the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. Mother of the petitioner died and after becoming free after performing last rites of his mother, on 28.11.1997 he came to his counsel and was told that suit was dismissed on 14.2.1997, then he moved application for restoration of the said suit alongwith delay condonation application supported by affidavit but trial court has rejected the said application vide order dated 25.7.1998 and revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed on 15.9.2000 stating therein that prior to dismissal of suit at several occasions, time and opportunity was given to the petitioner for taking steps to serve private respondents but petitioner has failed to take any steps, accordingly, suit has been dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 of C.P.C.. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted and demonstrated before the court that petitioner was required to explain the delay caused on expiry of period of limitation after 14.2.1997 prior to the date of moving his application for restoration of the said suit and he has plausibly explained the said delay in the delay condonation application but the courts below have travelled beyond the scope of application and recorded irrelevant finding about the conduct of petitioner prior to the impugned order dated 14.2.1997 passed by trial court. 5. He further submitted and demonstrated before the court that he has instituted the suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that sale deed has been obtained fraudulently by the defendants-respondents and the same is liable to be cancelled by the court, unless the plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to prosecute the matter before the trial court, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 6. Without going into merit of the case, I am of considered opinion that trial court and revisional court below were required to examine the cause shown by the petitioner in restoration application moved before the trial court in respect of delay caused after 14.2.1997 and they were not required to examine and assess the antecedents of the petitioner prior to the aforesaid date for rejecting the said application for restoration of the suit in question. Therefore, in my opinion, both the courts below have committed serious illegality in deciding the said application. Accordingly, the order dated 25.7.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bansgaon, Gorakhpur and order dated 15.9.2000 passed by District Judge, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 167 of 1998, Ram Nain Vs. Audhesh Singh and another, are hereby quashed. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and lapse of time, the interest of justice demands that the order dated 14.2.1997 passed by trial court should also be quashed and the suit should be restored to its original number. Accordingly, the order dated 14.2.1997 passed by trial court dismissing the suit in default for want of prosecution has also been quashed and the suit is restored to its original number and file of the trial court. The trial court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with the provisions of law on receipt of the order passed by this court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The trial court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with the provisions of law on receipt of the order passed by this court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Petition allowed. _____________