a C2 i.TTIS) uiniiu" S- a.S'i^S a. the Family Coiu-t Raiuuri Siddheshwar Soni, S/o Shri Ram.sarau Soni, aged about : 39 years, R/o. Bewra, Tahsii: Navagarh, Distt. Durg (CG) (Noa-applicaat before the Fanuly Court, Rainur Sint. Sobha Soiii, W/o. Shri Siddtieshwar Soni, aged about 32 years, R/o, C/o Shri D.P. Verm.a, 54/576 Chhattisgarh State Electricit}' Board, Behuid fhe sub Office Daiiganiya, Raipur, Distt. :aipui- (CG) First Appea! under Section 19 (1] ofthe Fam.U'? Coart Act Sliri L.C. Dash, counsel for ttie appeUant. Sliri Pawan Keshwarwaai, counsel for the isspondent (Passed on 11.09.2009) to^niig judgm.ent of fhe Court was passed by Heard on adnussion.. 2. This appeal under Section 19(1) offhe F'anuly Court'Act, 1984 is directed agam.st the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by -Lhe leanied llit Addition.al Prmcipal, Judge, FamUy Court, Raipiir in Miscellaiieous Civil Suit No.04/07, wbereby the leamed Additioiial Prilicipal Judge has disiuissed ftie applicatioa for restoration of CivU Suit No. 378 A/06 filed by the appeUaat agadiist respondent for divorce on 28.7.2007. 3. The above order is chalienged ou tlie grouiid th.at the Court below has not considered the ground of absence of the appeUaat when fhe case was caDed out for hearm.g before tiie Jzidge, Family Court. -f- 4. Brief facts of the . case are fiia't tlie present appeUaat and iisspondent are husbaud aad wife. The appellant Iias filed CivU Su.it No. 378 A/05 be.fore the AddiuoaaE Priiicipat Jadge, F'aiaily Coui-t, Raipuf, which was pendiag for heaiiag on 24.7.2007. On 24.7.2007 the appeUaut was not preseat before th.e Judge, Faiiuly Court aad fhe learaed Judge, Faiiuly Court. has disiaissed the suit for divorce fUed bv Mm. On 27.7.2007 the appellant filed an appUcation for restoranon of the eivil suit disiciissed forwant ofprosecution on the ground fhat lie was fhreatened aad urevented by fhe familv meiu.bers ofrespoudent for not appeariag before flie Faiiuly Court. After affordiag opportunity of hearing the leamed Judge, Faiiuly Court has disniissed the application vide order impugned. r7 5, Leamed counsel for the appeUaat argued fhat on 24.7.' appeUaiit was present aud he has shown sufficient cause for his iiou-appearstiice. The Court. below has not considered his itiou for restoi-ation aad has disimssed tlie same. 6. On th.e ofher hand, leafned counsel for the respondent opposed Uie appeal and submitted tliat the pi^sent appellant has aot shown auy svtfficient and valid reasons for liis aon appearaiice on 24.7.2007 before fhe Fanuly Court. 7. We have heard leamed counsel for botli fhe paities aad have perused ttie recoixt of the Family Court. 8. The present appellailt has ffled the applicatiou for restoratioii of cyil suit dismissed for waiit of prosecution wifbin 3 days fi'oxii its disiG.isssl ou tbe gTd.i.uid fhat on 24.7.2007 be was threatened aad prevented by famfly ineiiibers of respondent for not appearing before fhe Court. !n ttie present case, the appelEaat has ffled fhe appUcation for restoratioii of fhe suit disiaissed for wa&t of prosecution withiii 3 days. Thiis, considerm.g fhe fact fhat the appellaat had filed tl-ie application for restoration of Civfl. Suit No 378 A,/06 withia 3 days and had shown suiBcient and valid reasons for his non- . ^.•i-'s3~v-vt t. "k y"^! • '•'"''i^ appearan.ee before the Famiiy Court, we are of the considei^d opmion that fhe Coiirt below has erred ia law ia disraissin.s Uie application for restoration filed by the appeUaiit. The order impugned is not sustaiuable and is liatsle to be set aside. In the result fhe appeal is aUowed, Order dated 22.8.2007 passed .by fhe leamed 1st Additional PriB.cipal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is hereby set aside. Tbe parties are directed to appeaj- before the 1st Additional Priiicipal Judge, Faiaily Court Raipur on 27.10.2009 ic. furtlier progress of'the case. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R-L.Jhanwar Judge fti-T'