The court has inherent powers to recall and cancel its invalid orders.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendants under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against" the order of the Sub-Judge, dated 27th January, 1973, setting aside the dismissal of the suit.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 27th January, 1973, none appeared for the plaintiff, while the counsel for the defendants was present, and the court dismissed the suit in default of appearance. On the same date the court suo moto recalled its order on the ground that the case was really fixed for 8th February, 1973 for obtaining the specimen signatures of the defendant and as such it could not be dismissed on 27th January, 1973 and so the order was recalled, and notice was issued to the defendants. The counsel for the defendants has challenged the subsequent order of the court and has contended that the court had no jurisdiction to recall the order under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure without an application of the-plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside the dismissal.

( 3 ) MR. Patney, counsel for the respondent, has contended that originally 27th January, 1973 was fixed as the date for recording the evidence of the plaintiff but the plaintiff had moved an application for obtaining specimen signatures of the defendant, which had been fixed for 8th February, 1973 and as such the date, 27th January, 1973, stood cancelled and this was the impression gained by the plaintiff respondent as well as the court.

( 4 ) THE contention of the counsel for the respondent seems to be correct. The court dismissed the suit on 27th January, 1973 in default of appearance and on the same date, later in the day, it set aside the order of dismissal and restored the suit suo moto without any application of the plaintiff, presumably on the mistake being pointed out by the office of the court. In my opinion, "the impugned order does not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction. It is not only the jurisdiction and power of the court, but it is certainly its duty to recall its order, if it finds that the same were invalid and had been passed by a mistake of the court and would cause injustice to the parties not at fault. Correction of the mistake of the court can be done by the court suo moto without any application by the parties concerned, or even if the court is moved to do so by the parties. " There are a number of authorities to show that the court has jurisdiction and power to recall and cancel its invalid order which had been passed by its own mistake. Reference in this connection may be made to Keshardeo Chamria v. Badha Kissen Chamria, AIR 1953 SC 23 (1), where the Supreme Court held that the order dismissing the execution on part satisfaction was had and the executing court was justified in correcting the same under its inherent powers, and that the order of restoration of the execution case passed under section 151 of the Code by the executing court did not come within the purview of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as such was not appealable. The Supreme Court also observed that such an order could not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In B. V. Patanisar v. C. G. Sastry, AIR 1961 SC 272 (2), the court observed that where the executing court ignored the provisions of the law prohibiting eviction of tenants and passed an order of delivery of possession in execution of a decree, the order could be set aside and an order of redelivery to the tenant could be passed on an application under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In L. Janakirama Iyer v. P. M. Nilakanta Iyer, AIR 1962 SC 633 (3), it was held that where the decretal ordodrawn in the High Court as a result of inadvertence and through error introduced the words "mesne profits" instead of the words net profits the error could be corrected by the High Court under sections 151 and 152 even though the appeals from the decre