CRP 382/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH (Amitava Roy, J) This Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court on 01.02.2006 with cert ain defects, which eventually were rectified on 22.09.2010 after a lapse of 4 ye ars. It is incomprehensible as to why the Office has permitted such an endeavou r. An explanation be called for from the concerned Section as regard this unwar ranted benevolence. This petition was listed yesterday, i.e. on 27.09.2010 and it having been submit ted on behalf of the petitioner that his arguing counsel Mr. B. Hussain is unwel l, it was posted today. Today, the same prayer is repeated. Having regard to t he year of the filing of the petition, we have declined to adjourn the matter. Moreover, the petitioner is represented by a panel of Advocates. We have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the opposite party. The petitioner had instituted Title Suit No.129/98 in the Court of Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.) No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati praying for a decree, inter alia for a declara tion that certificate dated 30.07.97 as well as the notice dated 30.07.97 issued by the Bakijai and Certificate Officer, Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam in Bakijai Case No.13/1997 (Misc) is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed for default on 17.09.2002, whereafter, the petitioner filed an applic ation for restoration thereof, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.174/2002 . The opposite party resisted the prayer by filing written statement. As in co urse of the arguments that followed, according to the petitioner, the medical ce rtificate that was annexed to the application for restoration was found missing, he filed another application on 25.07.2003 being accompanied by the original me dical certificate, which he had filed earlier. The petitioner in support of his claim examined himself, however the doctor issu ing the medical certificate testifying his illness therein was not produced. The learned Court below on a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, by the order impugned rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the pe titioner has sought to invoke the Court power under Article 227, read with Secti on 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter for short referred to as the Code). Mr. Dey has urged that having regard to the fact that the impugned order is one of rejection of an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for default, in terms of Order 43, Rule 1C, the same is appealable and therefore on that coun t alone this petition is liable to be rejected. Without prejudice to this, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner having failed to prove the ground of his illness on the date of his omission to take steps in the suit, the learned court below was perfectly justified in usin g its judicious discretion in rejecting the petition and therefore this Court in the exercise either of its superintending jurisdiction or the revisional jurisd iction would not interfere. According to Mr. Dey, not only the initial applicati on of the petitioner did not disclose that he was treated by the doctor whose me dical certificate, he ultimately produced in original, the said medical expert h aving abstained from appearing in the Court and attesting the veracity of the sa id certificate, the petitioner failed to prove that the default was not intentio nal but on compelling grounds. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, the medical certificate on which the petitioner relies and have also taken note of the arguments advance d. On the face of the records, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for restoration of a suit dismissed for default and is thus appealable under Ord er 43 Rule 1C of the Code. On that count alone this petition is not maintainable in law. Apart therefrom, on a plain reading of the impugned order, we are satisfied that the reasonings recorded therein do not warrant any interference in the exercise of this Court’s superintending and/or revisional jurisdiction. Having regard t o the ground urged by the petitioner and the materials in support thereof, we ar e of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court cannot b e denounced as purported, perverse or illogical. In the above view of the matter, without dilating on the factual aspects, we are of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference at this e nd. This petition is therefore rejected. No costs.