KOTVAL C. J.-This petition has been referred to a Division Bench for decision by Mr. Justice Tulzapurkar because the learned Judge entertained some doubt whether he has the power to grant the application made before him. It virtually raises the following question:

"Where an application to restore a suit to file under Order IX rule 9 is itself dismissed for default, whether a further application to restore the application under Order IX rule 9 to the file will at all lie?"

The learned Judge felt that in view of the decision of this Court in D. B. Manke v. B. Walwekar (1) such an application might not lie, but there are conflicting authorities on the question.

2. The circumstances under which Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 1966 came to be filed are as follows: The applicant is the liquidator of a company known as the Laxmi Investment Co. Private Ltd. of Akola. He was appointed the liquidator of the company after an order of winding up was passed on February 12, 1962. This company had entered into an agreement with one Tarachand and others to purchase the immovable property from the said Tarachand and others for a sum of Rs. 60,000 on January 23, 1957. The agreement was subse