JUDGMENT
Binod Kumar Roy, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order refusing to readmitting her appeal which was dismissed for default.
2. The relevant facts are as follows:
3. The appellant filed a suit in the court of Munsif Ist Gaya for grant of decree of permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering with her peaceful possession over property in dispute and also from removing the enchroachment by force or in interfering in making construction upon the same. The said suit was dismissed on 22-8-1979. The appellant filed Title Appeal No. 190 of 1979, which was admitted on 18-12-1979 and in due course transferred to the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge IV, Gaya. From the records, it appears that on 7-12-1984, the appellant filed hazri but the respondent did no
pairvi and the bearing of the appeal was adjourned for 17-12-1984. On 17-12-1984, the presiding officer was on leave and the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 9-1-1985. On 9-1-1985, no one appeared on behalf of any side and the hearing was adjourned to 21-1-1985. On 21-1-1985, the appellant filed a time petition but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent and the hearing was adjourned to 30th January, 1985. Same course followed on 30th January, 1985 and 7th February, 1985. The hearing was adjourned to 21-2-1985. It appears that on 21-3-1985 no step was taken by the appellant. The respondent was also absent. No one had appeared on behalf of the appellant as well as on behalf of the respondent. The appeal was thus dismissed for default. A petition for restoration of the appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant alleging therein that since she is a lady, her case is being looked after by her husband, who belongs to a business community and often goes out of the town in connection with his business work, that prayer for time could not be made as her husband who was expected to be present on 21-3-1985, but could not come back, that there was no one in the family of the appellant to look after the appeal except her husband, and that she will suffer an irreparable injury, if the appeal is not re-admitted. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1985. On behalf of the appellant her husband was examined. The appellant’s husband, however, could not be cross-examined, as no one appeared despite notice on behalf of the respondent to oppose the prayer. Even before this Court also no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. By the impugned order, her prayer was rejected on the ground that on three consecutive previous dates, prayer for time was made on her behalf and that on 26-11-1984, 16-12-1984 and 9-1-1985, even no pairvi was made and that the lawyer could have been well instructed to file time petitions and all these show intentional latches on the part of the applicant, more so when no evidence has been led to suggest that there was unavoidable circumstance from appearing in court or in not making pairvi on 21-3-1985.
4. Mr. Kumar Bahadur, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits, that the court below has completely misconceived the scope of Order XLl, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the court below has committed an apparent error in thinking that the appellant’s husband had intentionally committed latches where as he was merely a Pairvikar, that the court below has erred in taking into account of not doing pairvees on 26-11-1984, 16-12-1984 and 9-1-1985 as a relevant factor, that the court below has not applied his mind to the glaring aspect of the matter and as per the case of the appellant, her husband, who is a business man had remained away from the house and as a result thereof she could not do any pairvi on 21-3-1985, the date on which the appeal was called out for its hearing ; that since the appellant’s husband was out of station he could not instruct the appellant’s advocate to file a time petition on 21-3-1985, and that the evidence of the appellant’s husband being expert, in the peculiar facts circumstances it ought to have been accepted when there was no inherent defect therein.
5. In my view the submissions of Mr. Bahadur are well founded.
6. The court below has not applied its mind to the glaring aspect of the matter that the appellant was a lady, who was depended on her husband who has categorically stated that in connection with his business he has to go out and that on 21-3-198 for that reason no pairvi could be done in the case by him and that from him there is no one to look after her case.
7. The word sufficient cause occurring in Order All, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure also occurs in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The word ‘sufficient cause’ it is well settled, has to be interpreted liberally.
8. I am of view that the court below had erred in refusing re-admission on irrelevant hand incorrect grounds overlooking the apparent fact that the appellant’s husband who alone was doing
pairvi on her behalf and that except him there was no one away from Gaya in connection with his business The court has also committed an error of record in observing that no evidence has been led to suggest that the appellant was prevented by any unavoidable circumstance in appearing in court or in not making pairvi on 21-3-1985.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside and the Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1985 is allowed and Title Appeal No. 190 of 1979 is directed to be re-admitted and to be disposed of in accordance with law after giving a fresh notice to the respondent herein. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, there shall be no order as to cost.