ORDER C.L. Pangarkar, J.
1. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit No. 153 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.). Akola for Specific Performance of Contract. The suit came to be dismissed for default on 26th October, 1998. It is the contention of the petitioner that she for the first time came to know of dismissal on 15-9-2000 when she enquired about it upon death of her lawyer in May 2000. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 9 or Civil Procedure Code on 18th September 2000,
2. The learned Civil Judge recorded evidence of the petitioner and found that there was no sufficient eause for absence of the plaintiff on the date of hearing. Holding so, he dismissed the application.
3. An application for restoration is required to be filed under Article 122 of the Limitation Act within 30 days of dismissal and not from the date of knowledge. In this matter the suit was dismissed on 26-10-1998 and the application was filed on 18-9-2000 i.e. almost after two years.
4. The scope of revision is very limited. The Court has only to look into the illegality or material irregularity. Further the revisional Court is not supposed ordinarily to reappreciate the evidence.
5. Even on the basis of pleadings itself, I find that the application was rightly rejected by the lower Court. It is stated in the pleadings that in the month of November, 1999 the petitioner had gone to the house of her lawyer in order to enquire about her suit and she even paid Rs. 2000/- to the lawyer. It is just difficult to accept that when a suit was already dismissed in 1998, the lawyer would not inform the client and would tell lies and accept Rs. 2000/-.
6. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that when the petitioner was told in November, 1999 that the case is fixed for evidence, and she would be shortly informed of the future date. In spite of this, the petitioner did not care to contact lawyer until his death or somebody in the Court soon after his death, She remained silent till September, 2000. This inaction on the part of the petitioner shows her negligence.
7. It is further rightly observed by the lower Court that the petitioner/plaintiff was granted many chances to tender evidence before the trial Court but she did not turn up and tender the evidence and ultimately after giving 2-3 chances, the learned judge dismissed the suit for default. This again shows that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. The learned judge of the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P. Code. This revision application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.