JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2013 passed by ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for restoration of the suit has been allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed in default on 05.06.2008 by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, respondents-plaintiffs moved an application for restoration of the suit, which has also been dismissed in default vide order dated 23.07.2011. Thereafter, respondents-plaintiffs again moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit after the lapse of eleven months. The same has been allowed illegally and arbitrarily vide the impugned order. 4. I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, there is considerable delay in filing the application. However, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the parties should not be penalized for the mistake of their counsel. It is also settled principle of law that the case is required to be decided on merit and not on hyper-technical grounds. 6. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed.