SBCRP NO.30/2008 –LEGAL HEIRS OF RAMVILAS V/S LEGAL HEIRS OF BHAGWATI LAL. : JUDGMENT DTD.2.4.2008 1/1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.30/2008 Legal heirs of deceased Ram Vilas versus Legal heirs of Bhagwati Lal PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.S.L.Jain, for the petitioner. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 2nd April, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dtd.1.11.2007 whereby the learned trial Court allowed the restoration application of the decree holder in execution application on the cost of Rs.600/- in favour of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has approached this Court by way SBCRP NO.30/2008 –LEGAL HEIRS OF RAMVILAS V/S LEGAL HEIRS OF BHAGWATI LAL. : JUDGMENT DTD.2.4.2008 2/2 of present revision petition being aggrieved by the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in allowing the restoration application on the ground that on the particular dated 19.2.1994 on account of advocates being on strike, the advocate concerned could not appear in the Court on behalf of the decree holder. He submits that as a matter of fact, there was no strike of advocates on that date. He further submits that the Court below has also erred in taking into account the photocopies of the medical certificates produced by the decree holder seeking restoration of execution application. 4. Considering the submissions made at Bar, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 1.11.2007 in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. as the Court below appears to have been satisfied on the basis of material before it that the decree holder was prevented by the sufficient cause on the said date 19.2.1994 from appearing in the matter and pursuing the said execution application. The exercise of this discretion by the learned trial Court does not SBCRP NO.30/2008 –LEGAL HEIRS OF RAMVILAS V/S LEGAL HEIRS OF BHAGWATI LAL. : JUDGMENT DTD.2.4.2008 3/3 call for interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 5. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.36 Ss/-