( 1 ) INSTANT application is made on behalf of the respondents under Order XLVII Rule 7 (2), Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 141 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking recall of order dated 13/5/1999 and restoration of RA No. 24/90 as well as application for condonation of delay in filing the objections.

( 2 ) THE application proceeds to state that Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate had appeared as counsel for applicants respondents on 10/3/1999 when the case was adjourned to 13/5/1999. However, by bonafide mistake, Ms. Saroj Bidawat got the impression that matter had been adjourned to 14/5/1999 and she accordingly made note of 14/5/1999 instead of 13/5/1999 as the next date of hearing in her diary. Having misnoted the date, there was no appearance on 13/5/1999 from the side of the applicants-respondents, which accounted for dismissal of the review application and I. A. No. 9480/90 for condonation of delay in filing the objections.

( 3 ) THE application is supported by an affidavit of ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. The application is opposed on behalf of the non-applicant/ petitioner on the grounds that since the review application had been decided on merits, the application for restoration thereof is not maintainable and further that there being no sufficient cause for non appearance of the respondents or their counsel, the application cannot be granted. I have heard the arguments on both the sides. The order dated 13/5/1999, dismissing the review application and I. A. No. 9400/90 may be reproduced for the benefit of reference. It reads as under:

"there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. By the present application the respondent seeks review of the order dated 17/9/1990. Perused the order dated 17/9/1990. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the review application and the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application are dismissed. IAs stand disposed of. "

( 4 ) ON 10/03/1999, the case was adjourned to 13/5/1999, for disposal of RA 24/90 and IA 9400/90. On that date, however, there was no appearance on behalf of the applicants-respondents. Instead of dismissing the said applications for default, the application for review was dismissed holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. IA No. 9400/90, which is actually an application for condonation of delay in filing objections to the award and not one seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application, as noted in the order dated 13/5/1999 was also dismissed in view of rejection of the application for review. Learned counsel for the applicants respondents seeking restoration of the said applications contended that though the order dated 13/5/1999, in relation to the review application purports to have been passed on merits, the same is in fact an order under Order 17 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and not one under Order 17 rule 3 (a) of Civil Procedure Code, and therefore, apart from Order xlvii Rule 7 (2), Order IX Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code can well be invoked to maintain an application seeking restoration of the review application. It was pleaded that though the provisions embodied in Order 17 are basically applicable to the suits, by virtue of Section 141 of the Code, the same can be held applicable in relation to miscellaneous proceedings as well. He argued that on the analogy of provisions contained in Order 17 Civil Procedure Code relating to suits, in view of Section 141 Civil Procedure Code, on 13/5/1999, when the respondents or their counsel failed to appear before the Court when the applications in question were taken up for disposal, the only course open to the Court was to proceed to dispose of the same under relevant provisions of Order 9 Civil Procedure Code and no order on merits could have been passed. He further pleaded that even if the order dated 13/5/1999, purports to have been passed on merits, the same would in effect be treated as one passed