H.L.Agarwal, J.

1. This application in revision is by the defendants against an order restoring a miscellaneous case filed by the plaintiffs, which was dismissed for default in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 1966, which was ultimately dismissed for default, in the absence of the defendants on 6th May, 1971. On the same day an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1971. This miscellaneous case was also dismissed for default on the 31st July, 1971. Thereafter an application under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) was filed by the plaintiffs on the 21st March, 1972, obviously much beyond the period of thirty days. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1972. By the impugned order the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the application and has ordered for restoration of Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1971 (wrongly stated in the certified copy of the order as Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1972).

2. It appears that in the Court below only one question was raised, namely, maintainability of an application under Sec.151 of the Code. The question of limitation does not appear to have been urged at that stage. The question of maintainability was decided in favour of the plaintiffs opposite party by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge by putting reliance upon a decision of Mr. Justice Untwalia (now the Hooble C. J.) in the case of Chandrika Singh V/s. Parsidh Narayan Singh, AIR 1960 Pat 504 in which it was held that if an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed for default, an application under Sec.151 of the Code for cancelling the order of dismissal of such an application and restoration of the same was competent.

3. In this court Mr. Kumar Bahadur appearing for the petitioners has urged only one question, namely the question of limita- tion and contended that the application filed under Sec.151 of the Code was barred by limitation. Counsel put reliance upon Article 122 of the new Limitation Act which reads as follows;

"To restore a suit or appeal or application for review or revi sion dismissed for default of appearance or for want of pro. sedition or for failure to pay costs of service of process or furnish security for costs.Thirty days.The date of dismiss till"

It is manifest from the provision of Article 122 that an application under Sec.151 of the Code for setting aside an order of dismissal for default of an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code for restoration of a suit is not covered by this Article. It applies only to the following descriptions of the application:

(a) An application to restore a suit,

(b) An application to restore an appeal, and

(c) An application for review or revision dismissed for default of appearance, etc.

Evidently, Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1971 filed under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code was an application filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of the title suit which was dismissed for default of their appearance and was governed by this Article. But the provision of this Article being very specific, it cannot be construed to apply to an application filed under Sec.151 of the Code for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for restoration of such an application.

4 Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha appearing for the plaintiffs opposite party, on the contrary, submitted that no specific period was prescribed in any of the Articles under the third division of the Limitation Act and therefore the residuary Article, namely. Article 137 must apply to the application filed under Sec.151 of the Code.

5. No authority of this Court was cited at the bar before the in support of the contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties. In a very much similar circumstances a question was raised in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pooranchand Mulchand V/s. Komalchand B