THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4578 OF 2011 ORDER: In a petition filed for restoration which was dismissed for default on 25.12.2010, the Court below noted that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 19.02.2008 and it was posted for defendant’s evidence on 28.12.2010, on which date neither the plaintiff nor her Counsel had appeared in the Court resulting in the dismissal of the suit. The Court below noted that as the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence and the plaintiff’s evidence was already closed and as the plaintiff was an old woman and was sick, the suit could be restored. The Petition was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.50/-. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners-defendants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 Cr.P.C. The order of the Court below is a discretionary order. It defies reason that the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit and who did not even adduce evidence, should be aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for absence of the plaintiff on one particular day. The Civil Revision Petition is an abuse of process of law. I see no reason to exercise discretion to interfere in this matter. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Date: 04.11.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR