1. This Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. Is filed by the applicant against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below. The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration, injunction and partition of the property which she alleged to have been purchased in the name of respondent Banami to the extent of 90% share. The suit instituted by the petitioner was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner on 24-3-1987 when it was dismissed at 12.30 p.m. On account of absence of petitioner as well as her counsel. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. For restoration of the suit or 12-4-198 7. This application was fixed in Court on 25-5-1987 for hearing when it was adjourned to 25-7-1987. This application was also dismissed on 25-7-1987 for default as both the petitioner and her counsel were found absent on that date. A second application for restoration of the restoration application was filed on 28th August, 1987 and it was contended before the trial Court that on 25-5-1987 when the case was adjourned to 25-7-1987 counsel had wrongly noted the date of hearing as 28-7-1987 in his diary and as such non-appearance of the counsel on 25-7-1987 when the restoration application was dismissed was neither deliberate not wilful. The trial Court however, rejected the application for restoration of suit and the first appellate Court also agreed with the trial Court. Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant contends that dismissal of application under Order 9. Rule 9, C.P.C. For restoration of the restoration application was bad in law as while rejecting the aforesaid application the trial Court did not give any reason whatsoever for not allowing restoration of restoration application. It is also contended by the learned counsel that at best the case was one of negligence of the Advocate for which the party should not be penalised and the Courts below should have ordered restoration of the suit upon payment of reasonable costs to the respondent. In support of his contention that in the case of negligence on the part of the counsel the party should not be made to suffer the learned counsel relied on the case of Seth Shivrattan G. Mahatta and another v. M/s. Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd., PLD 1965 SC 669. The case cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable. In that case the Court reached the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of counsel for which the plaintiff could not be made to suffer. In the present case the Courts below did not restore the suit for the reason that on 24-3-1987 when the suit was dismissed not only the counsel but the plaintiff was also absent and no explanation whatsoever has been offered, for non-appearance of the plaintiff on that date. Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. Filed in the case for restoration of the suit it is stated that the plaintiff was the informed by the counsel about the date of hearing. This application filed by the plaintiff is supported by the personal affidavit of the counsel who in his affidavit had only explained his non-appearance in the case on 24-3-1987. No counter-affidavit to this application was filed and as such it is quite clear that the reason for the absence of counsel on 24-3-1987 has been explained sufficiently. However, as the suit was fixed for evidence of petitioner, it was also necessary for her to have properly explained her absence on 24-3-1987. There is no explanation to the affidavit filed in support of the application explaining the non-appearance of the plaintiff on 24-3-1987. There is no statement in the affidavit filed in support of application that the petitioner was not notified about the date of hearing by her counsel or there was any arrangement between the petitioner and her counsel to the effect that unless she is required by the counsel her appearance in Court was' not necessary, The suit was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 24-3- 1987 and unless there was some compelling reason for her not to appear on that date her absence could not be condoned. There being no explanation for her non--appearance on 24-3-1987, the Courts below cannot be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity in refusing to restore the suit. There is no merits in this Revision Application, which is accordingly dismissed summarily.
2. M.A.K./S-402/K Revision dismissed