JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P, dated 22.04.2019, vide which the suit has been dismissed for non prosecution on the ground that despite reasonable opportunities having been granted to plaintiff to lead evidence, plaintiff has failed to do so. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order per se is not sustainable as on the date previous to passing of the impugned order when the matter was listed before the Court on 10.04.2019, the following order was passed:- "10.04.2019 Present: Sh. N.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. V.C. Jain, learned counsel for defendant. Heard. Record perused. Taking into consideration the fact that the prayer, which has been made in application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. by the defendant/applicant has already been incorporated in the written statement filed to the amended plaint on 17.08.2017 by applicant/ defendant, in preliminary objection No.5, therefore, to my mind, the present application, which is simply an abuse of the process of law and has been rightly contested by the respondent/ plaintiff by filing a reply thereto, is dismissed. Application is accordingly disposed of. Be tagged with main case file. Further perusal of record would reveals that in fact the present matter has been fixed for evidence of the plaintiff but no issues have been framed therefore, at the first instance list the matter, on 22.04.2019, for proposed issues and issues. Dictated and announced in the open Court this the 10th day of April, 2019". Yet, ignoring this fact that in the absence of any issues having been framed, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to produce his evidence, the case stood dismissed for non prosecution, on the ground that no plaintiff witnesses were present. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the facts as stands narrated by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed because it is a matter of record that on 10.04.2019, the case was ordered to be listed on 22.04.2019, for the purpose of framing of issues. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the facts as stands narrated by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed because it is a matter of record that on 10.04.2019, the case was ordered to be listed on 22.04.2019, for the purpose of framing of issues. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended with the petition, which includes order dated 10.04.2019, as also order dated 22.04.2019, passed by the learned Court below, this Court concurs with the submissions so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order vide which the suit has been dismissed for non prosecution, is a perverse order. 5. In view of the fact that on 10.04.2019, learned trial Court had ordered the case to be listed on 22.04.2019 for the purpose of framing of issues, dismissal of the case for non prosecution for want of examination of plaintiff witnesses by the learned trial Court on 22.04.2019 is in fact a perversity committed by it. 6. Accordingly, without going into any further details, this petition is allowed by setting aside order dated 22.04.2019 with further direction that the Civil Suit is ordered to be restored to its original number. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on 10.12.2019, on which date learned trial Court shall fix a date for the purpose of framing of issues and thereafter, the matter shall be proceeded in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.