ORDER :- This revision petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff, Imphal, dismissing an application for restoration of another application which had been dismissed for default.

2. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 26 of 1957 in the Munsiff Court, for recovery of certain land with mesne profits. He had closed his evidence in the case and the defence was to begin on 15-11-1957. On that day, the petitioner was absent and the suit was dismissed for default. Then he filed an application on 28-11-1957 for restoration of the suit. It was Miscellaneous Case No. 58 of 1957. That underwent many adjournments.

Ultimately, it was also dismissed for default of plaintiffs appearance. Then, the petitioner filed another application, Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1958 for reviving the earlier application. That also was dismissed for default of appearance. Then, he filed Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1959 on the very same day on which Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1958 was dismissed for default stating that he was present in the Court Compound when the case was called and that it was by a mistake that the case happened to be struck off.

The Munsiff could have easily restored Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1958 on this explanation of the petitioner. But he held that O. 9 R. 9 C.P.C. would apply only to suits and not to applications and that he could treat the application filed by the petitioner as only an application to restore the suit, but that such an application has to be made within 30 days of the dismissal of the suit and that it was therefore barred by limitation.

3. I am unable to agree with the learned Munsiff, Section 141 C.P.C. makes the procedure in regard to suits also applicable to other proceedings in a Court, as far as it can be made applicable. The learned Munsiff has completely lost sight of this provision in holding that O. 9 R. 9 will not apply to the present proceedings. He ought to have treated the application, Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1959 as an application to restore Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1958, which was dismissed for default.

It was a mistake on his part to have stated that he must treat the application Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1959 as if it was an application to restore the suit. It was by no means an application to restore the suit as the petitioner has to cross two further hurdles first by getting his application No. 59 of 1958 restored and secondly by getting Miscellaneous Case No. 58 of 1957 allowed before he could get his suit restored. Thus Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1959 was clearly for the restoration of Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1958. It was filed on the very day of the dismissal of that application and no question of limitation was at all involved.

4. The learned Munsiff has referred to AIR Commentaries on the C.P.C. Vol. II at p. 2460 - under O. 9 R. 9. But he has made no attempt to understand the principle involved in the matter. It is no doubt true that some of the High Courts, namely, Allahabad, Calcutta and Patna have held in some decisions that O. 9 R. 9 would nut apply where applications are dismissed for default; but only where suits are dismissed for default.

But other High Courts like Madras, Lahore, Bombay and Oudh have considered the said decisions and differed from them. The Calcutta High, Court in its decision Bipin Behari Shaha v. Abdul Barik, ILR 44 Cal 950 : (AIR 1917 Cal 548 (1)) has also taken the view that O. 9 R. 9 C.P.C. would apply to cases where applications for restoration of a suit are dismissed for default. I have perused many of these decisions. I find that the preponderance of view is for the position that O. 9, R. 9 would apply to such applications. I certainly agree with those decisions which lay down that position, because Sec. 141 C.P.C. makes it clear beyond doubt.

Even if O. 9 R. 9 would not apply, the Court has always got its inherent power under Sec. 151 C.P.C. to entertain such an application. In this particular case the petitioner happened to be ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document