ORDER : (Rekha Borana, J.) 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Civil Misc. Case No.07/2016 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC as preferred on behalf of the petitioner plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The facts are that the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed in default and in non-prosecution on 30.11.2013. An application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC was filed by the plaintiff on 24.02.2014 with the submission that on 30.11.2013 when the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence, he was on election duty in the MLA elections and hence, could not present himself before the Court. It was therefore prayed that the order dated 30.11.2013 be set aside. 3. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application as preferred on behalf of the plaintiff observed that the plaintiff filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief after 10 opportunities been given and then despite 14 opportunities been granted for cross-examination did not present himself before the Court. The Court further observed that even the application under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC was filed after a delay of three months. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation as made by the learned Trial Court is totally erroneous as no 14 opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to remain present for cross-examination as after the affidavit of examination-in-chief been filed by him, there were two applications filed which were decided on 25.05.2013 and 26.10.2013 respectively. After that, it was only on the first date i.e. 30.11.2013 when the matter was again fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff. On that date, he was on election duty and hence, the reason assigned by him for his non-appearance on 30.11.2013 was a valid and justified one. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the application was rightly rejected as there was no document placed on record to show that the plaintiff had prayed for relaxation from his election duty, he being required to appear for cross-examination before the Court. Meaning thereby, he intentionally did not appear for cross-examination and therefore, his application has rightly been rejected. 6. Heard the counsels and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 7. Meaning thereby, he intentionally did not appear for cross-examination and therefore, his application has rightly been rejected. 6. Heard the counsels and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 7. Order 9 Rule 4, CPC provides as under: “4. Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may restore suit to file.—Where a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or rule 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit; or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for[such failure as is referred to in rule 2], or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.” 8. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if any order of dismissal is passed in terms of Order 9 Rule 2 or Rule 3, CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to apply for an order to set aside the said dismissal and for the same, he is required to satisfy the Court that there was a sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date when he was required to appear. 9. It is evident on record that the plaintiff was on election duty on the date fixed for cross-examination i.e. 30.11.2013. In support of the said fact, the order of his election duty was placed on record by the plaintiff but the learned Trial Court declined to consider the same on the premise that the plaintiff did not place on record any document to show that he moved any application to the Election Officer for relaxation in the election duty. The Court observed that on 30.11.2013, there was no application moved on behalf of the plaintiff to inform the Court about his election duty. Therefore, the non-appearance of the plaintiff on the said date neither could be termed to be bonafide nor the reason assigned could be termed as sufficient. 10. The Court observed that on 30.11.2013, there was no application moved on behalf of the plaintiff to inform the Court about his election duty. Therefore, the non-appearance of the plaintiff on the said date neither could be termed to be bonafide nor the reason assigned could be termed as sufficient. 10. This Court is of the clear opinion that the said observation of the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be justified as it is evident on record that after the decision of the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on 26.10.2013, the matter was fixed on 30.11.2013 for cross-examination on which date the plaintiff was on election duty. 11. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the said reason was insufficient is totally erroneous. In the opinion of this Court, there was a justified reason for non-appearance of the plaintiff on the said date. Even if the Court proceeded on to pass the order of dismissal on the said date, it ought to have considered the said reason on the application under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC been filed by the plaintiff. 12. The High Court of Gauhati while reiterating the settled position that in cases where sufficient reason is provided for the non-appearance of the plaintiff, the application under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC ought to have been allowed by the Court, in the case of UCO Bank vs. Monoranjan Paul; Civil Revision Petition No. 79 of 1999 (decided on 18.08.2003), held as under: “3. It is settled principle of law that as far as possible, parties should be given opportunity to contest matter on merits unless there is flagrant disregard to the proceedings taken up by the Court or there is deliberate in action on the part of the party in not attending the Court. In the present case no such ground is made out as the plaintiff's counsel has moved the application after the dismissal of the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with law and is hereby set aside.” 13. Further, the Delhi High Court while considering an application under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC in the case of Joyvision Electromec vs. First Feel International; CM(M) 1242/2022 and 1246/2022 (decided on 20.12.2022), held as under: “7. Further, the Delhi High Court while considering an application under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC in the case of Joyvision Electromec vs. First Feel International; CM(M) 1242/2022 and 1246/2022 (decided on 20.12.2022), held as under: “7. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner in that, no party ought to be deprived of its rights to a remedy as ordained by law and such issues of dismissal for default on account of a party's absence or that of its counsel, should not come in the way of dispensing complete justice unless the Court finds that as habitual or recurring. In the present case, the Petitioner had, in fact, moved the learned Trial Court for recall of the impugned order within the stipulated period of limitation.” 14. As is the settled position of law, even if the Court proceeded on to pass any ex parte order on the said date, it definitely ought to have permitted the plaintiff to participate in the further suit proceedings in terms of the provisions of Order 9, CPC. By whatever means, the suit itself ought not to have been dismissed. 15. In view of the above facts and observations, the present appeal is allowed and the order impugned dated 30.03.2016 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC as preferred by the plaintiff petitioner is allowed. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 03.01.2025. 16. The learned Trial Court shall proceed from the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall be under an obligation to present himself before the learned Trial Court on the said date for the cross-examination. If the plaintiff does not appear on the said date, the learned Trial Court shall be at a liberty to pass appropriate orders even to the extent of dismissal of the suit. The Court shall not be under an obligation to issue any fresh notices. 17. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.