( 1 ) IN this revision, two questions arise for determination, namely, (1) where a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been dismissed in default of appearance and an application filed for its restoration is also dismissed in default of appearance, whether or not a further application for restoring the previous application for restoration would be maintainable under the law and (2) whether the impugned order of the Court below allowing such second application suffers from a legal or jurisdictional infirmity.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the revision are that the respondent herein filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi which was, as required by sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act, numbered and registered as a suit. The same was dismissed on 24th April, 1967 in default of appearance under Order 9, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil procedure. On the same date, the respondent filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code for restoration of the main petition. Notice of the said application was issued, but it appears that during its pendency, some proceedings for substitu