N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 846 of 1966 in the court below. It was dismissed for default on 8-1-1968 in absence of both parties. The dismissal, therefore, was under Order 9, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). Although the order expressly said that the dismissal was under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code, Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code itself specifically refers to dealing with such matter in accordance with Order 9 of the Code. Thereafter, on 23-1-1968, the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit. The application must be in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 9 of the Code. This application has been dismissed by the court below on two grounds; (i) that it is barred by limitation and (ii) that it is not maintainable as the petitioner had other remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Additional Munsif has not entered into merits of the petitioners case as to whether he has made out sufficient cause for restoration of his miscellaneous case filed under Rule 4 of Order 9 of the Code. The plaintiff has come up in revision.

2. On both the points the learned Add