Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of the two applications (C.M. 1073/98 and C.M. 1074/98), both filed on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) for restoring the Civil Revision Petition (CR 160/97), dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioner on 18th March, 1998, to its original number and also for grant for interim stay.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned two applications lie in a narrow compass. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated the 18th September, 1996, passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Execution No. 37/96 entitled Smt. Sushma Nangia v. Roadmaster Industres Ltd., the petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition (C.R.160/97 M/s. Roadmaster Cycle Ltd. v. Smt. Sushma Nangia) under Section 115, CPC. Along with the Civil Revision, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 151, CPC for interim orders. The learned predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 9.5.1997, directed issuance of a show-cause notice to the respondent asking the respondent to show cause as to why the Revision Petition be not admitted. Simultaneously by way of interim relief it was ordered that there shall be stay of the execution proceedings till the next date of hearing.

3. The above mentioned Revision Petition along with the stay application was fixed for hearing before this Court on 18.3.1998. As none appeared on behalf of the, petitioner on the above said date, the Civil Revision Petition (C.R. 160/97) and the Miscellaneous Application (C.M. 616/97) were directed to be dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioner.

4. Now the petitioner has filed the present application (C.M. 1073/98), under Section 151, CPC for the restoration of the Civil Revision Petition, dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioner vide order dated 18.3.1998 to its original number and another application (C.M, 1074/98) also under Section 151, CPC for grant of interim stay.

5. Notice of the above mentioned applications was given to the respondent who has filed a detailed reply opposing the prayer made by the petitioner.

6. Insofar as the above mentioned applications are concerned I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. Order IX Rule 9 CPC, which is relevant for deciding the application (C.M. 1073/98) for the restoration of the Civil Revision Petition, dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioner vide order dated 18.3.1998, reads as under:

"9. (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh fruit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party."

7. The words sufficient cause, occurring in the above said Sub-rule (1) Rule 9 Order XI, CPC, are of utmost significance. Though the expression sufficient cause has not been defined but it must mean a cause which is beyond the control at the party invoking the aid of the same. In other words any cause, which prevents a person approaching the Court within time, is sufficient. In doing so it is a test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by exercise of due care and attention. Moreover, as per settled law, the provisions of Order IX Rule 9, CPC are procedural in nature and, therefore, the same should receive liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice rather than to frustrate or defeat the same.

8. In the light of the above settled legal position it is to be seen as to whether the applicant/ petitioner has shown sufficient cause within the meaning of Sub-rule (1) Rule 9 Order IX, CPC. In the application, filed on behalf of the petitioner, for the restoration of the Civil Revision Petition, dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioner, it is stated that the lawyer of the petitioner who felt thirsty, went to the Bar Room for the purposes of drinking water and in-between the case was called out and was dismissed in default. The correctness of the above facts is not disputed by the respondent also in reply which has been filed on behalf of the respondent to the above mentioned application. Bona fide mistake of the Counsel has been held to be a sufficient cause and a client cannot be made to suffer on that counts. In my opinion, in view of the facts stated in the application, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 18.3.1998 when the Civil Revision Petition (C.R. 160/97) was called on for hearing and, therefore, the application (C.M. 1073/98) filed by the petitioner for the restoration of the Civil Revision to its original number deserves to be allowed.

9. In view of the above discussion, the application (C.M. 1073/98) is allowed and the Civil Revision Petition (C.R. 160/97) is restored to its original number and it is directed that the status quo ante as it existed before the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition (C.R. 160/97) and C.M. 616/97 also stands restored.

10. In view of the orders passed in C.M. 1073/98, restoring the Civil Revision Petition and the status quo ante in the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in application (C.M. 1074/98).

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs

12. CMs. 1073/98 and 1074/98 stand disposed of in above terms.