JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar,J. The defendant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 9 November 2015 passed by the revisional court/District Judge, Aligarh in Civil Revision No.117 of 2015 rejecting the restoration application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the trial court allowed the restoration application, aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision, during pendency of the revision the suit itself was dismissed for want of prosecution, and till date the suit has not been restored, therefore, the revisional court committed an error in proceeding with the revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would not dispute the fact that the suit has yet not been restored. 4. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the revisional court should not have proceeded with the revision pending restoration of the suit. It is informed that the restoration application is posed for 8 March 2016. The order dated 9 November 2015 passed in Civil Revision No.117 of 2015 is, therefore, set aside. However, it is provided that the revisional court shall proceed to decide the revision only after the decision is rendered by the trial court on the restoration application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. 5. In view of the above, the petition succeeds, and is allowed. No cost.