JUDGMENT 1. The present Civil Revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6968 of 2004 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. They are aggrieved against the order passed by the lower appellate court in restoring the appeal filed by the respondent herein in A.S.No. 710 of 2006 which came to be filed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 6968 of 2004. 2. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed the above said suit for redemption of mortgage. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 13.6.2006 decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved defendant, who is the respondent herein, filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 22.11.2007 the counsel for the appellant did not appear and argue the matter and hence the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution on the very same day. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC seeking to restore the above appeal. The said application was resisted by the petitioners herein. The Court below after considering the rival submissions and the pleadings of the parties allowed the application on the ground that the parties should not suffer for the negligence of the counsel. Aggrieved against the same, , the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the above application. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side. 4. The respondent herein suffered a decree in O.S.No. 6968 of 2004 on 13.6.2006. Aggrieved against the same, they filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 22.11.2007, the counsel for the appellant did not appear and hence the Court below dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC seeking to restore the appeal would disclose that on 22.11.2007 the senior counsel for the appellant came to the court at 3.30 P.M. and he was informed that just before his entry the appeal was dismissed and immediately the counsel also represented before the Court that due to heavy work in the High Court, he could not come to the Court in the morning when the matter was called. It is further stated in the affidavit that the learned Judge informed the said counsel that the order was already pronounced and advised the counsel to file the restoration petition. 5. The petitioners herein as the respondents in the above, application filed counter affidavit. Though they denied the averments contained in the affidavit in general terms, there is no specific denial with regard to the averments contained at paragraph 4 of the affidavit wherein the respondent herein has narrated as to what transpired 22.11.2007. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Court below would also show that on the date of hearing, by the time the counsel came, the Court had risen after dismissing the appeal for default. Thus, it could be seen that the court below has accepted the reasons given by the respondent herein as correct statement and therefore allowed the application by holding that the appellant should not suffer for the mistake or negligence committed by the counsel. When such being the factual finding rendered by the Court below for restoring the appeal, I find that no interference is called for in this Civil Revision Petition. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even though the application was filed in the year 2007, the respondent herein kept quiet for nearly three years to number the same and bring it for hearing. But at the same time, it is to be seen that the application was filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the application. In any event, the Court has accepted the reasons stated in the affidavit and when such factual finding is rendered, then this Court in the absence of any other materials placed to take a different view cannot interfere with such factual finding. Accordingly, I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. 6. At the same time, the fact remains that the respondent herein even though filed the application for restoration of the appeal in the month of December 2007, they kept quiet without numbering the same for nearly 2 ½ years. That shows some lethargy on their part. Considering the same, the Court below ought to have imposed certain cost on the respondent before allowing the application. That shows some lethargy on their part. Considering the same, the Court below ought to have imposed certain cost on the respondent before allowing the application. Accordingly, even though I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition by confirming the order of the Court below, I further impose a condition on the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioners herein within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.