ORDER S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners.
2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2004, passed by Special Judge, J.P. Nagar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 2002.
3. From perusal of record it transpires that by an ex parte decree dated 9.5.1997 plaintiff-petitioners' suit was decreed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Hasanpur, Moradabad. Applications for restoration of suit and for condoning delay supported by an affidavit were rejected by trial court by order dated 22.5.2002. The Judgment and order passed by appellate court in appeal is impugned in the present writ petition.
4. By the impugned judgment, appellate court allowed restoration application and condoned delay, ex- parte decree dated 9.5.1997 was set aside at the cost of Rs. 1,000 and suit was restored to its original number.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners urged that trial court passed an order on the question of delay only and did not pass any order so far as restoration application is concerned. He further urged that appellate court erred in law while allowing the restoration application also and order impugned is vitiated in law on this ground.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and considering materials on record, I am of the view that as reasons disclosed for nonappearance on the date fixed in the suit and delay in filing restoration application are same, appellate court rightly allowed restoration application after condoning delay.
7. Where ground for restoration of the suit as well as condonation of delay is the same, order restoring the suit and condoning delay could be passed by one and common order and in case restoration application is allowed, delay shall be deemed to be condoned.
8. My view is supported by a judgment of Apex Court in Devinder Pal Sehgal and Anr. v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Limited, 2002 (1) AWC 395 (SC) : (2002) 3 SCC 156.
9. There is no error of law in the Impugned order. It was rightly passed in accordance with law. Now parties shall get full opportunity of hearing.
10. Writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.