JUDGMENT : Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 7th May 2007, passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, in an application for restoration of Appeal titled Kewal Kumar v. Kewal Kumar and others, whereby Appellate Court permitted respondent herein to withdraw the application for restoration of Appeal with liberty to file fresh one, and also against order dated 12th July 2007, passed in an application under Order 41, Rule 19 CPC, whereby Appeal titled Kewal Kumar v. Kewal Kumar and others (File No. 10/Misc) dismissed in default on 11th April 2007, has been readmitted to hearing by the Appellate Court. Brief facts: 2. Respondent/plaintiff had filed a Suit for Declaration against petitioners/defendants, seeking declaration to declare adoption deed dated 1st September 1994, registered on 2nd September 1994, in favour of petitioner no.1, as invalid and ineffective in the eyes of law and petitioner no. 1/defendant is not adopted son of Late Behari Lal. In terms of judgment and decree passed on 14th October 2006, learned Munsiff, R.S. Pura, dismissed the suit of respondent. There against, an Appeal was preferred by respondent before the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu. On consideration of the matter, Appeal was admitted to hearing and judgment and decree stayed vide order dated 23rd November 2006. On 11th April 2007, the Appeal was dismissed in default. In order to seek restoration of Appeal, an application was filed by respondent before Appellate Court. On objection with reference to maintainability of application, respondent sought permission of Appellate Court to withdraw application with liberty to file a fresh application seeking re-admission of Appeal. The prayer was granted. As a corollary, respondent moved an application under Order 41, Rule 19 CPC for re-admission of Appeal. Appellate Court vide order dated 12th July 2007 allowed application and readmitted the Appeal to hearing on the ground that respondent had shown sufficient cause, which is a requirement in terms of Order 41, Rule 19 CPC. 3. The orders dated 7th May 2007 and 12th July 2007 are questioned in Revision Petition on hand on the ground that the orders are contrary to facts and true legal position. 3. The orders dated 7th May 2007 and 12th July 2007 are questioned in Revision Petition on hand on the ground that the orders are contrary to facts and true legal position. The order impugned dated 7th May 2007 is stated to be not sustainable as withdrawal has been allowed with permission to file a fresh application for re-admission of appeal without any application by respondent and that the order has been passed by the Appellate Court just for the asking of the respondent, which is not permissible in law. It is averred that Order 41, Rule 19 CPC would show that application for re-admission lies under this Rule only when the order of dismissal has been passed under Rule 11 Sub-Rule (2) or Rule 17 or Rule 18 and that onus is shifted upon applicant to prove that he was prevented by any sufficient cause for appearing when the appeal was called for hearing. No sufficient cause and good reason, according to appellants, has been spelt out by respondent before the Appellate Court nor has been any sufficient cause for re admitting the Appeal given by the Appellate Court while passing impugned order. The Appellate Court is said to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and that enforcement of a provision of law in the absence of the fulfilment of the requirement of the specific provisions cannot be termed as technicality. 4. I have gone through the pleadings as well as record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Respondent herein - appellant below, while seeking re-admission of Appeal has supplied cause of non appearance as a fault of lawyer, who had failed to appear on the day, the matter was fixed for hearing. Learned appearing counsel for respondent has, in support of cause supplied in the application, sworn an affidavit. The application, filed by respondent, seeking readmission of Appeal, makes mention of the submission that learned counsel for respondent could not attend the proceedings before the Appellate Court at the time when the case was called as he was busy in the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, failure of counsel had formed basis for dismissal of Appeal in default. The application, filed by respondent, seeking readmission of Appeal, makes mention of the submission that learned counsel for respondent could not attend the proceedings before the Appellate Court at the time when the case was called as he was busy in the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, failure of counsel had formed basis for dismissal of Appeal in default. Perusal of impugned order reveals that though Appellate Court has found absence of counsel as not too convincing and satisfactory, yet it was pointed out that proceedings could not be truncated for respondent forever for the failure of his counsel. The failure of counsel to prosecute the appeal, forming ground for dismissal, has been found causing inconvenience to petitioner, but for meeting ends of justice it was thought proper to allow parties to project their case before the Appellate Court and have the matter decided on merits. 6. Can the Court ignore an affidavit filed by appearing counsel stating the ground of non-appearance to be not a sufficient cause for re-admission of the appeal, is the question to be answered. 7. Time and again, it has been reiterated by various pronouncements of the Apex Court and various High Courts that technicalities shall not form ground for deciding the matters with reference to restoration of cases/re-admission of appeals or setting aside ex parte orders/decrees. The object of adopting liberal approach in dealing with the matter of re-admission of appeal, is to allow the approaching party before the Appellate Court to have the matter settled on merits. The Courts cannot adopt strict approach in dealing with the matter having reference to re-admission of the Appeals. The Supreme Court in Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981 AIR (SC) 1400), while dealing with a case of identical facts, has observed: "The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr. A.K. Sanghi stated that a practise has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. May be he is better informed on this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practise by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power and expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr. A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs. 200/- should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr. A.K. Sanghi." 8. It is trite law that it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for readmitting the Appeal to hearing by the Appellate Court. 9. For all what has been discussed above, there is nothing bad in the orders dated 2nd May 2007 and 12th July 2007 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu. As a corollary revision petition is bereft of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 10. Copy be sent down.