JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.08.2011 passed by Additional District Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Nainital in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2007 whereby the application for restoration of the suit has been rejected on the ground of delay. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the learned court below has not considered this fact that the appellants had engaged Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate who was regular practitioner in District Court Nainital. However, upon establishment of High Court at Nainital, the said counsel shifted to High Court and could not appear before the court below in this case on the date fixed. As such, the civil suit was dismissed for default. But when the appellants knew about the dismissal of the suit, they immediately took necessary steps for filing of application for restoration of the suit and filed the same on 01.9.2007. The restoration application was duly accompanied with an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act. Learned Tribunal, vide order dated 03.08.2011, rejected the restoration application on the ground of delay. 3. Learned senior counsel has contended that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order in a very arbitrary manner and, while doing so, the court below has not looked into the sufficient cause shown for the delay caused in filing of the restoration application. 4. In support of his case, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “8. The appellant’s conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. What he did in defending the suit was not very much far from what a litigant would broadly do. Of course, it may be said that he should have been more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to check up the progress of the litigation. But during these days when everybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences.” 5. But during these days when everybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences.” 5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that there is delay of about more than 3 years and is also not sufficiently explained. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This fact is not disputed that Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate who was the counsel of the appellants in the civil suit had shifted to High Court. The Court finds that there is no wilful delay on the part of the appellants in filing the restoration application. It is a settled law that a litigant should not made to suffer on account of mistake of his counsel. 7. In the light of aforesaid and in view of well settled proposition of law, the restoration application is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable to learned counsel of the respondents within a period of 15 days, failing which, the order shall automatically stand revived. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.