JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The revisionist/landlord had instituted SCC suit, way back in the year 1993, which was numbered as Suit No.03 of 1993. The same was dismissed for want of prosecution on number of earlier occasions, during its pendency and ultimately, till it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.11.2014. Seeking its recall, the plaintiff/revisionist, herein, had filed a Miscellaneous Application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC to be read with Section 151 of the CPC along with the delay condonation application, which was numbered as Paper No. 5C before the learned Trial Court; seeking recall of the order dated 25.11.2014. By the impugned order, which has been put to under challenge before this Court, in the present civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, it is the rejection of the restoration application, seeking restoration of the prior restoration application, which has been rejected. 2. The respondents have put in appearance through Mr. Shikhar Kacker, Advocate, as a Caveator. He was heard on merits of the matter. In case, if the judgment impugned itself is taken into consideration in its entirety, the reason assigned by the learned court of Judge SCC/Additional District Judge, 4th, Dehradun, while rejecting the SCC Misc. Case No.01 of 2016 "Nathmal Agarwal Vs. Lt. Col. Sudhish Kumar Sharma and others" is bad in the eyes of law. 3. On the previous occasions when the suit was being proceeded, there had been some dereliction or slackness and non- diligence, on part of the landlord/revisionist, in contesting the proceedings and the matter was dismissed in default and thereafter it was restored earlier on couple of occasions. It was those reasons, and act of plaintiff, which has been extracted by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court for rejecting the restoration application, as it was apparent from the findings recorded in the paragraph no.6 of the said judgment, where the logic assigned by the Court below for rejecting the restoration application, was that on the prior dates, the landlord/revisionist remained absent, matter was dismissed for want of prosecution and it was later on restored. 4. 4. I am in absolute disagreement with the reason for rejecting of the restoration application, for recalling the order dismissing the matter in default, merely on the pretext that the proceedings is of the year 1993 and it remained pending for the last 28 years, that in itself cannot be the reason for not to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC exclusively on its own merit, where the revisionist has given the reasonable and genuine reasons for absence on the date fixed; while considering the application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC in a regular civil proceedings; I am of a considered view that the court's ceased with the restoration application for seeking to recall the order, ought not to have ventured or travelled into a past conduct of the litigants, in the proceedings for the purposes of extracting it as to be the reason to reject the application. 5. The said application, ought to have been exclusively considered on its merits and not on the basis of the past conduct of the parties or the applicant to the application. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the revisionist has made a reference to a judgment reported at "Rajendra Prakash & others Vs. Gauri Shanker & others,1990 RD 505". Though it was a case, which was factually dealing with the incident of consideration of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, but the aspect, which has been determined in the said judgment, it had been that the allegations or non-consideration of the material contained in an application which is under consideration, it ought not to decide the matter on the basis of the previous absence, it cannot be extracted to reject the recall application. Reference may be had to the paras of the judgment, which are extracted as under:- "The trial court, on a consideration of the entire material before it, came to the conclusion that the conduct of the appellant as not bona fide. He also found that the allegation that the counsel and the defendant-appellant had reached the Court at 1.30 p.m. on 2.11.1988 appear to be incorrect inasmuch as the ex-parte proceedings were concluded only after 2.45 p.m. when the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff was filed in Court. He also found that the allegation that the counsel and the defendant-appellant had reached the Court at 1.30 p.m. on 2.11.1988 appear to be incorrect inasmuch as the ex-parte proceedings were concluded only after 2.45 p.m. when the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff was filed in Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we do not find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Trial Court. As far as the previous conduct of the appellant is concerned, it should not have been the sole criteria for deciding the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. though certainly the previous background could be kept in mind by the Court in believing or not believing the version of the appellant. It has been pointed out that out of the three occasions when ex-parte orders were passed earlier, on two occasions, no ex-parte decree was passed and the appellant had appeared before the Court and pointed out the mistake in the order and that the defendant was not at fault on those occasions. The appellant, however, admits that on the third occasion, certainly ex-parte decree was passed as he had failed to appear on account to illness. According to him, that was the only occasion when he had actually defaulted in appearing in Court and that too on account of his illness. It is submitted that the earlier orders should not be taken as an adverse circumstance against the defendant's conduct. Earlier ex-parte orders and ex-parte decree had been set aside, they lose much of their importance except for a limited purpose." 6. Another judgment on which reliance has been made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, was rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Wahid Vs. Smt. Zarina Begum and others,1999 3 ALR 830 page and particularly, he has made a reference to paragraph nos.11 and 12 of the said judgment, wherein, it was specifically held that the past conduct for the purposes of considering the application for recall should not be taken into consideration as the basis for rejecting a recall application. 7. There is another judgment rendered by another Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the matter of Qaisar Sibtan V. District Judge,1996 ACJ 24 516wherein, identical view has been taken. 7. There is another judgment rendered by another Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the matter of Qaisar Sibtan V. District Judge,1996 ACJ 24 516wherein, identical view has been taken. The relevant portion of the said judgment read as under:- "It is established principle of law that while considering the question of grant of adjournment or recalling of an order, the past conduct is immaterial. The court has to look into the merit of the case confining to the date of the order sought to be recalled was passed. The court has to look out whether sufficient ground has been made out for the default on the very date or not. Looking into the past conduct would be an extraneous consideration which the court should not go into. In that view of the matter, taking into account the past conduct does not seem to me to be fair and correct approach adopted by the learned court below." 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application which was filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC by the revisionist, there has to be a sufficient ground, to consider it to be reasonable for recalling of an order. His arguments is not acceptable by this Court, for the reason being that the consideration or non consideration of the grounds taken in his restoration application, is not the basis of passing of the impugned order rejecting the restoration application. Since it has been exclusively confined on the basis of the determination of the past conduct and no finding has been recorded in relation thereto, the sufficiency and its aspect which has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent is not left open, to be addressed, before this Court on the said aspect. Because the Court itself has not given any reasons for not considering the grounds of absence taken in the restoration application, for rejecting it. 9. In that view and the facts, the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2021, rejecting the recall application, itself is erroneous and based on an illogical reasoning extracting it on the basis from the past conduct. The impugned order dated 01.02.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and as a consequence thereto, it is made clear that the SCC Suit No.3/1993, would stand restored to its original number. The impugned order dated 01.02.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and as a consequence thereto, it is made clear that the SCC Suit No.3/1993, would stand restored to its original number. Since the suit is pending before the court of Judge SCC/ Additional District Judge, 4th, Dehradun, and the matter is pending for consideration for quite a long time ever since 1993, the SCC court itself is directed to decide the said suit on its merit, but not later than, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. Subject to the above, the revision stands allowed. The impugned order dated 01.02.2021, under challenged is hereby quashed. 11. However there would be no order as to cost.