NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. This revision application has been filed on behalf of the defendant for setting aside an order dated 14-4-1972 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad restoring the money suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party, which had been dismissed under O. IX, R. 4 of the Civil P. C., (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code).

2. The money suit in question had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party on 30-10-1968. 3-1-1972 was a date fixed for the hearing in the said suit. On that day, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the plaintiff and it was adjourned to 7-1-1972. On 7-1-1972, none of the parties appeared and no steps were taken either on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge dismissed the suit saying that when the suit was called none responded, and, as such, it was being dismissed. On 3-2-1972, plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition labelling it under O. IX, R. 9 of the Code and making a prayer for restoration of the suit in question. On the basis thereof, a miscellaneous case was registered. On that very date, the learned Subordinate Judge directed issuance of notice to the defendant The case was adjourned to different dates and ultimately on 14-4-1972 the application for restoration was taken up for hearing and the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the plaintiff and considering the materials on the record passed an order restoring the suit to its original file. The defendant-petitioner was not, however, heard before the aforesaid impugned order was passed. According to the petitioner, as notice of the restoration application had not been served on him by that date, he could not be present to oppose the application in question.

3. The revision application was listed for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who has referred it to Division Bench for consideration as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case service of notice on the defendant-petitioner was obligatory before the suit in question would have been restored.

4. Before I consider that question, one fact should be mentioned that it is an admitted position that although the application for restoration filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party had mentioned O. IX, R. 9, it was an application under O. IX, R. 4 of the Code, as on the date fixed in the suit neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had appeared. Order IX of the Code provides for the consequences of non-appearance of the parties. In this connection, it may be mentioned that R. 2 and R. 3 of O. IX provide for different sets of contingencies under which a suit can be dismissed. Rule 8, however makes provision for entirely a different situation. A suit can be dismissed under R. 2 where on the date so fixed it is found that the summons had not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court-fee or postal charges for such service. Under R. 8, a suit can be dismissed when neither party appears when the suit is called for hearing. When the suit is dismissed either under R. 2 or under Rule 3 of Order IX, an application for restoration can be filed under O. IX, R. 4. O. IX, R. 8, however, applies to cases where the defendant appears but the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called for hearing and then also a Court can dismiss the suit in question. When a suit is dismissed under R. 8, it can be restored in accordance with the provision of O. IX, R. 9. The basic difference in R. 3 and R. 8 is that whereas a suit can be dismissed under R. 3 when neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears when the suit is called for bearing, it is to be dismissed under Rule 8 when only the plaintiff is absent whereas the defendant is present at the time when the suit is called for hearing. Similarly, there is some basic difference between the provisions of Rule 4 and R. 9 which are the two provisio