The inherent power of the court cannot override the express provisions of the law and can only be invoked when there is no other express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the situation.

A title suit filed by the decree-holder opposite party against the judgment-debtor petitioner was decreed on 4th March, 1968. That decree was put under execution. It appears that in Execution Case No. 14 of 1978 the judgment-debtor filed a petition No. 49/11 praying for the stay of the execution till the harvesting of the crop was done. The decree-holder opposed that petition of the judgment-debtor. The learned Munsiff executing the decree rejected the application of the judgment-debtor. He also rejected the objection of the decree-holder on the ground that the petition filed by the judgment-debtor had become redundant. The learned Munsiff also passed a further order in the following terms :

"D. H. took no other steps for proceeding with execution. Hence the case is dismissed for default."

2. The above order was passed by the learned Munsiff on 11 th July, 1980. The decree-holder filed an application No. 92/14 before the learned Munsiff praying that the said order dated 11th July, 1980 be set aside. The judgment-debtor filed a petition N. 94/2 contesting the said application of the decree-holder. The learned Munsiff having found that the grounds stated in the petition of the decree-holder were quite satisfactory, allowed his application and rejected the petition of the judgment-debtor by his order dated 14th July, 1980 and fixed 24th July, 1980 for taking steps by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor feeling aggrieved has filed the instant petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, impugning the validity of the said order dated 14th July, 1980.

3. For the revisionist it was urged that the decree-holder had filed the application for setting aside the order dated 11th July 1980 under S.151, Code of Civil Procedure which, in view of the provisions of Rr.105 and 106 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure, was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the court below could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under S.151, Code of Civil Procedure when there was a specific provision to deal with the matter under R.106 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the decree-holder opposite party submitted that as the period of 12 years calculated from 4th March, 1968, had already expired long before 11th July, 1980, when the execution application was rejected by the trial court on the ground of non-prosecution, the court below had inherent jurisdiction to recall its order and restore the execution petition with a view to meet the ends of justice.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it would be appropriate to extract hereinbelow R.105 and 106 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure.

"105. Hearing of application- (1) The Court, before which an application under any of the foregoing rules of this Order is pending, may fix a day for the hearing of the application.

(2) Where on the day fixed or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the applicant does not appear when the case is called on for hearing, the court may make an order that the application be dismissed.

(3) Where the applicant appears and the opposite party to whom the notice has been issued by the court does not appear, the court may hear the application ex parte and pass such order as it thinks fit.

Explanation. - An application referred to in sub-rule (1) includes a claim or objection made under R.58.

106. Setting aside orders passed ex parte, etc. - (1) The applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) of R.105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1) of R.23, may apply to the court to set aside the order, and if he satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the court shall set aside the order on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for the further hearing of the application.

(2) No order shall be made on an application und