C.R. No. 6593 of 2009 Karnail Singh vs. Gurdial Kaur and others Present : Ms. Taranjit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 8 Mr. Narender Lucky, advocate for respondents No. 9 and 10 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that trial Court as well Revisional Court took hyper technical view while rejecting the application for restoration. She further states that on the date fixed i.e. 20.7.2007 counsel for the plaintiff was away to attend Bhog Ceremony, hence, he was unable to attend the Court. Adjournment sought on that ground was declined and case was dismissed in default. I have perused the order dated 20.7.2007, adjournment sought was refused and case was dismissed in default for want of prosecution in the absence of counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, who was away to attend Bhog Ceremony. This is settled principle of law that case should be decided on merit as far as it is possible. In the peculiar facts and cir.cumstances of the case, order dated 20.7.2007 is recalled and suit is restored to its original number. However, plaintiff shall pay Rs. 5000/- as cost to the defendants. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SINGH) July 23, 2010 JUDGE reenaz