Inherent power of the Court cannot be invoked for restoration of an execution case dismissed for default in the absence of any sufficient cause.

1. These two civil revisions between the same parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The decree-holders are opposite parties in both the Civil Revision applications. In two money suits, they had obtained two money decrees against the husband of the petitioner. The decrees were of substantial amounts of several lakhs of rupees. Both the decrees were put in execution in two different execution cases. Both the execution cases were earlier dismissed for default. Thereafter, in the year 1962, two fresh execution cases were filed being Execution Cases Nos. 120 and 121 of 1962. At some stage of the execution proceedings, the husband of the petitioner died and the petitioner was substituted as a legal representative of the judgment-debtor. On the 30th January, 1964. she filed an objection that most of the properties were her personal properties and were not liable for payment of the decretal dues against her husband. Two miscellaneous cases started under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure were allowed, and rnotl of the properties were released from attachment. Tt appears that some properties were in possession of a receiver and a dispute cropped up in regard to them also. From the order of the Execution Court dated the 14th June. 1966 passed in the miscellaneous cases, Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 234 and 236 of 1966 were filed in this Court, and we were informed at the Bar that the disposal of those miscellaneous appeals is awaiting the disposal of these two civil revisions. But what is, however, to be pointed out at this stage is that no stay order was obtained by the decree-holders who had filed the said miscellaneous appeals staying further proceeding in either of the Execution Cases 120 or 121 of 1962

2A. After the passing of some order in the two execution cases on the 23rd December, 1966, disposing of some contentious matters between the decree-holders and the receiver, the further orders passed in both these execution cases on the 23rd December, 1966, were on identical lines. The terms of the orders were: "The miscellaneous case having been disposed of the D. Hr. is directed to take steps for fixation of valuation by 12-1-67."

The 12th January, 1967, was declared to be a holiday. The execution cases were put up before the learned Subordinate Judge, namely, the Execution Court, on the 16th January. 1967. The orders recorded in the two execution cases on this date are also in identical terms, and they read as follows:

"12th being holiday, record put up today. D. Hr. applies for time to take necessary steps in the case. To 30-1-67, for proper steps in aid of the ext. case."

3. Time petitions were filed again in both the cases on the 30th January, 1967, on behalf of the decree-holders. The cases were adjourned to the 27th February, 1967. On this date, time petitions were filed on the ground that the appeals against the order of the Execution Court had been filed in the High Court. Thereafter, on several dates, no pairvi was done on behalf of the decree-holders and the execution cases were adjourned from time to time on about 20 dates. On the 9th September. 1968. orders were recorded in the two execution cases asking the decree-holders to bring stay order or to take proper step in the case by the 20th September, 1968. Even thereafter, no steps were taken by the decree-holders, nor any stay order was obtained from this Court in any of the miscellaneous appeals. After adjoining the two execution cases for about a dozen times again, ultimately they were dimissed for default by order dated the 15th April, 1969, in these terms:

"D. Hr. has not taken any step though sufficient time has been given. Let the execution case be dismissed for default."

4. On the 14th May, 1969, the decree-holders filed two petitions under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for recalling the orders dated the 15th April, 19