The main legal point established is that under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a suit has been disposed of by mistake when another matter should have been disposed of, the party can apply to the Court to draw attention to the mistake.

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 525 of 1967, which had been dismissed by the trial court, on default on the 8th March, 1968. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoring the suit, which application has been dismissed by the impugned order.

2. In substance, two complaints have been made on behalf of the plaintiffs, to the effect, that on the 27th February, 1968 whatever matter had come before the court had been adjourned to some date beyond the 8th March. 1968, and by interpolation that date was converted into 8th March, 1968, when the entire suit was dismissed for default. Secondly, it is urged that the matter which had come for consideration before the trial court on the 22nd January, 1968 was an injunction matter, which was being postponed, and therefore, on the 8th March, 1968 really the injunction matter had come for decision and the suit itself should not have been dismissed for default. It may be mentioned that on the 8th March, 1968 no party was present before the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has argued that the suit had come for disposal before the Court on the 8th March, 1968 and that there was no question of any interpolation in the ordersheet and, therefore, the suit had been rightly dismissed on the 8th March 1968. It is also urged that the order of the 8th March. 1968 was an appealable order and the application filed under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable and in any case, it was filed beyond time, as it had been filed on the 15th May, 1968. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not think that it is possible at this stage and on the materials on record to come to any concluded opinion as to how certain corrections appear on the ordersheet. A correction appears in Order No. 12 and another correction appears in Order No. 15 and the applicants grievance is about a correction appearing in Order No. 16, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the suit itself should not have been dismissed on the 8th March, 1968 appears to be a valid argument. Order No. 12 indicates that the injunction matter was adjourned to the 13th December, 1967. This word injunction appears to be penned through now. Nowhere Order No. 14 dated the 22nd January. 1968 states that the injunction matter was adjourned to the 14th February, 1968. It appears that on the next two dates the learned Munsif was absent and the Munsif in charge recorded orders to the effect that the case was being adjourned for disposal. Actually, the injunction matter was being postponed. Therefore, when the learned Munsif returned on the 8th March, 1968 he was really to deal with the injunction matter, and in absence of both the parties to the suit he should have disposed of the injunction matter as not having been pressed. The suit itself should not have been dismissed. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that even if the injunction matter had been adjourned to the 8th March, 1968, the plaintiffs should have gone up in revision against the order dated the 8th March, 1968, or they should have filed an application for review. But, in my opinion, if by mistake of Court, the suit had been disposed of when the injunction matter should have been disposed of, it was open to the plaintiffs to apply to the Court under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, drawing the attention of the Court to the mistake. I do not think that the application of the plaintiffs could have failed on the ground that the order dated the 8th March, 1968 was revisable or that it could have been reviewed under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not think that in the circumstances of the case Order IX has any application, nor has Order XVII as contended by learned counsel for the opposite party. Once it is held that only injunction matter was to be disposed o