1. In this case we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to another chance. It is the business of the Courts to decide the rights of the parties and not to deprive them of their rights by the mere exercise of discipline but to use their discipline for the purpose of visiting neglect upon them and removing the results of such neglect. The learned Judge rightly says that at times parties will stay away when they are not ready and then come back with a cock and bull story to apply for restoration, in other words that they are acting mala fides. He has not been able to find that was so. In this case he only finds that the plaintiff was negligent in starting for the last train and missing it. Negligence of that kind is human and not irreparable. It can be repaired by paying the costs of the other side and restoring the parties to their original position. We are satisfied in this case by really overwhelming evidence, namely, that the claim was Rs. 20,000, that the plaintiff did start with his witnesses, and that he did in fact take the train and apply that day to have his case restored, on the ground, that he had been prevented by having missed the earlier train. We, therefore, reverse the order and direct the lower Court to restore the case to its pending file for rehearing on the condition that the plaintiff pays into Court within a month a sum of Rs. 100 as security for all costs borne by the defendant in the lower Court with fees in this Court on the higher scale. The money must be paid before the case is heard.