CR No. 5/2009 11.11.2009 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. M. Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.1 The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed in default on 17.11.2000 and application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed on 23.11.2000 itself. The lower Appellate Court has examined the record minutely and has rightly come to the conclusion that due to the plaintiff’s mother’s illness, the matter could not be pursued properly and effectively on the date fixed by the Court as a result thereof the suit was dismissed in default. The Court below has appreciated the entire material, including the statements of the witnesses and the medical record. The suit has been restored to its original position subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. There is also a direction to the effect that the suit be decided within a period of four months. Keeping in view the expenses incurred by the petitioner herein in defending the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC all throughout, learned counsel for the respondent herein has fairly suggested that the costs be enhanced. Accordingly, the petitioner herein shall be entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to him. I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Misc. App. No. 496 of 2006, titled as Surinder Kumar Sharma vs. Tilak Raj & Anr. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Record be sent back immediately. Learned counsel for the parties agree that both the parties shall cause appearance before the trial Court on 21.12.2009. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. November 11, 2009 (rana)