Sanjay Misra, J.— In view of the office report dated 15.9.2011 and 8.2.2012 notice issued by registered post AD to the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 is deemed sufficient. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgement and order dated 5.2.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2005 (Shankar Vs Shukalu and Others) by the First Additional District Judge, Court no. 1, Ghazipur arising out of Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1994 (Shankar Vs Shukalu and Others) wherein the restoration application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the order dated 3.1.2005 whereby the appeal was dismissed for default and also the impugned order dated 5.2.2009 whereby his restoration application has been rejected. 4. According to learned counsel the plaintiff appellant had made the restoration application giving reason for non appearance of his counsel when the matter was called out on 3.1.2005 and as such there was no fault on behalf of the appellant due to non appearance of his counsel before the appellate court. He states that the reason given in the impugned order dated 5.2.2009 for rejecting the restoration application is that there is no evidence filed by the plaintiff appellant with respect to engagement of his counsel in another court and that there is no evidence filed by the 'plaintiff appellant with respect to the illness of his wife whom he had taken to the hospital for treatment. 5. According to learned counsel the absence of the counsel for the plaintiff appellant was bonaf ide because the counsel was engaged in another court and therefore the restoration application ought not to have been rejected for that reason since it was not the fault of the appellant. He further submits that the plaintiff appellant had taken his wife to the hospital for treatment and that reason has been disbelieved by the court below on the ground that there was another hospital nearer to his house where he should have taken his wife for treatment. Learned counsel submits that it is also not a valid reason for rejecting the restoration application of the plaintiff appellant. 6. Learned counsel submits that it is also not a valid reason for rejecting the restoration application of the plaintiff appellant. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record the appeal was dismissed for default on 3.1.2005 and the reason given by the plaintiff appellant was that his counsel was busy in another court. If, that be the reason, it was a sufficient reason which did not require any documentary evidence to be filed by the plaintiff appellant before the appellate court because the appellant could not be made to suffer for no fault on his part. The view of the appellate court on that score is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. 7. Insofar as the second reason is concerned the appellant has stated that his wife was ill and on that date he had taken his wife to hospital for treatment. The court below has rejected the application for the reason that he has not taken his wife for treatment to a hospital near his home. Clearly that also is not a valid ground for rejecting the reason given by the plaintiff appellant in his restoration application. 8. For the aforesaid reason the impugned order dated 5.2.2009 passed in Misc. Case No.07 of 2005 cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The restoration application 4-ga filed under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC is allowed. The order dated 3.1.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1994 (Shanker. Vs Shukalu and Others) is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. 9. The First Appeal From Order is allowed as above. 10. No order is passed as to costs. _