JUDGMENT : S.C. SHARMA, J. 1. Parties through their counsel. 2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal is arising out of the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application preferred under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court has filed a civil suit claiming declaration and permanent injunction on 12.08.2014 for declaring the marriage of present appellant with the respondent Vinamrata as null and void. 4. The matter was listed before the trial Court on 22.07.2016 and as No. one has appeared on behalf of the appellant, the trial Court dismissed the civil suit. 5. Thereafter, an application was preferred under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was stated before the trial that the matter was listed before the Court of Shri P.S. Patidar, Principal Judge, Family Court and as the present appellant was sitting outside the Court room of Principal Judge, Family Court and his lawyer was busy, he could No. hear the attendance call, resulting in dismissal of the suit. The learned Judge has taken all of the aforesaid facts into account and he has stated in his order that incorrect statement was made by the present appellant stating that the matter was listed before Shri P.S. Patidar, Principal Judge, Family Court. 6. It has been stated that the matter was listed before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on 28.04.2016, 13.05.2016, 20.06.2016, 11.07.2016 and 22.07.2016 and No. before Shri P.S. Patidar; therefore, he has dismissed the application for restoration. 7. The another important aspect of the case is as argued by learned counsel for the respondent that she has been a victim of rape, she has lodged an F.I.R. for offences under Sections 363, 366, 367 and 376 of the IPC on 27.06.2014 and a trial is going on. She has stated that after lodging of the F.I.R. against the present appellant, all efforts are being made to ensure that the criminal trial stands frustrated by filing frivolous civil suit. She has stated that as the appellant has No. explained the sufficient cause for his No. -appearance, is No. entitled for any relief and the restoration application deserves to be dismissed. 8. She has stated that as the appellant has No. explained the sufficient cause for his No. -appearance, is No. entitled for any relief and the restoration application deserves to be dismissed. 8. This Court, after hearing the appellant himself, respondent and learned counsel, is of the opinion that No. case for any interference is made out in the matter as well as in the order passed by the learned Judge, 9. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.