JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Muktsar whereby suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed in default and the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Muktsar whereby application for restoration of suit moved by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. During proceedings of the suit, the case was fixed for effecting compromise between the parties and adjourned to 27.08.2006. On 27.08.2006, the case could not be taken up as it was Sunday, however, taken up on 28.8.2006 i.e. the next working day and the suit was dismissed in default. The petitioner moved application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.5.2012. 3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. A perusal of order dated 18.05.2006 reveals that the case was adjourned to 27.08.2006 which happened to be holiday on account of Sunday. The case was taken up on 28.8.2006 for hearing and on that day, on account of non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner, the suit was dismissed in default. In fact, on that day, the case should have been fixed for particular date and notices should have been issued to the parties or their counsel. Even application moved for restoration of suit within limitation was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.5.2012 in spite of fact that the respondents did not contest it. Since the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed in default on 28.08.2006 which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 28.08.2006 is perverse and illegal. On 28.08.2006, the Court should have fixed another date and notify the parties. Certainly, the petitioner was not aware about the date fixed i.e. 28.08.2006, therefore, his absence on that date was not intentional. 5. In view of this, the instant revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. On 28.08.2006, the Court should have fixed another date and notify the parties. Certainly, the petitioner was not aware about the date fixed i.e. 28.08.2006, therefore, his absence on that date was not intentional. 5. In view of this, the instant revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. Since the order dated 28.8.2006 has been set aside, the order dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) vide which application for restoration of suit has been dismissed, stands automatically set aside. The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is restored to its original number. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 2.9.2013. The trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law from the stage where the suit of the petitioner was dismissed in default. ——————————