Concurrent findings by the two Courts below as to the absence of sufficient cause for restoration of the petitioner's suit dismissed in default, relate to question of pure fact and really conclude this Civil Revision because they have not been shown to have resulted from any jurisdictional error of the nature of non-reading or misreading of evidence.
2. However without disputing the correctness of those findings learned counsel argues that instead.
Of proceeding to dismiss the suit for default in appearance on 1-3-1972, trial Court should have acted under rule 3 of Order XVII of the C.P.C. This contention is not sustainable on the present record because it has not been shown that on the previous date time may have been granted to the petitioner to produce evidence. Rather, the trial Court's order itself shows that the suit was adjourned on the last date. Hence, Order XVII, rule 2 was the only appropriate provision to be applied. Moreover, the foregoing contention does not appear to have been raised in the Court below and since it does not raise a question of pure law, therefore, effect thereto cannot be given in this Civil Revision. Contention is accordingly repelled.
3. There is no substance in the Civil Revision which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.