S.B. Sinha, J.

This Civil Revision Application is directed against an order dated 13.11.1990 passed by Shri G.N. Singh. Subordinate Judge, Ivth Court, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the said learned court condoncd the delay in filing the application and allowed the said application of the opposite party under order Ix rule 4 of the Civil procedure Code and thereby sot aside the order of dismissal of the suit dated 20.06.1990 passed in Title suit No. 342 of 1986.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed Title suit No. 342 of 1986 against the Petitioners for declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of the suit properties as also for setting aside the deed of sale purported to have been executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and further for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants-petitioner filed written statement in the said suit.

4. It appears that an application for injunction was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and in relation to the order passed therein, a Civil Revision Application was filed before this court being civil Revision No. 475 of 1988(R). By an order dated 24.2.1989 this Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order, the said order dated 24.2.1988 is contained in Annexure-1 to this Civil Revision Application

5. Thereafter a proceeding was initiated as against the petitioners on behalf of the plaintiffs-opposite parties for alleged violation of the order of injunction passed therein and the said matter also came up before this court in Civil Revision No.282 of 1989 (R). In that Civil Revision this Court by an order dated 19.3.1990 which is contained as Annexure 2 to this Civil Revision Application directed as follows :

“It is unfortunate that despite a clear direction contained in the order of this Court dated 24.2.1989 the suit could not be disposed of within the period of six months as directed. In view of the instant revision application and the stay order passed, the suit has remained pending. I direct the trial court to now proceed with the disposal of the suit and to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this order is either communicated or produced before the trial court.”

6. It appears that order of this Court was communicated to the court below on 19.6.1990. From the ordersheet of the said suit which is contained in Annexure-3 to the civil Revision Application, it appears that on the earlier date, namely, 2.6.1990 both - parties were absent. However, the learned court below in terms of the order dated 19.3.1990 directed the suit to be fixed for hearing .n the next dare despite the fact that on that date also nobody appeared.

7. On 20.6.1990 both the parties were absent. By an order of the said date, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed for default.

8. The plaintiff's thereafter filed an application for restoration of the suit beyond the period of thirty days as provided for under Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and filed an application for condonation of delay.

By reason of the impugned order the learned court below as noticed herein above condoned the delay and restored the suit to its original tile by setting aside the order of dismissal.

9. In this proceeding a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated as follows :

"That the deponent, however, humbly states that they had also challenged the transfer of the case from the court of Shri J.N. Sharma, Additional Subordinate Judge to the court of Shri J.N. Singh, Addl. Sub-Judge in which stay of further proceeding had been granted by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which is still pending being Case No. MJC 82 of 1989."

10. Mr. M.Y. Bqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners principa