The Civil Revision No. 201 of 1984 is directed against the order dated 30.6.84 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati whereby the application of the plaintiff opposite party under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and Title Suit No. 92 of 1982 which had been dismissed in default of the plaintiff on 13.3.84 had been restored. The Civil Revision No. 296 of 1984 is directed against the order dated 30.6.84 for the restoration of a Misc. Case which had arisen out of an order of injunction in the aforesaid Title Suit. Both the revisions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff opposite party had filed the Title Suit No. 98/82 against the present petitioner and others, challenging a sale deed in respect of the land in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the land was joint property of the plaintiff opposite party and the defendant No. 2, but the defendant No. 2 had illegally transferred by sale 'specific' portion of the property to the petitioner. On the prayer of the plaintiff an order of temporary injunction was made in the aforesaid suit against the defendant petitioner and subsequently an application was moved for the alleged breach or violation of the said order which was Misc. Case No. 22 of 84. Both the Title Suit and the aforesaid Misc. Case were listed for hearing on 13.3.84, but due to the absence of the plaintiff and his counsel, the suit was dismissed in default and the Misc. Case was disposed of as redundant in view of the dismissal of the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit by an application on 21.3.84. The learned Assistant District Judge, Gauhati, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 306.84. restored the suit. The learned Judge also res­tored the aforesaid Misc. Case by a separate order which is impugned in the other revision.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court and Shri N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has submitted that the application for restoration of the suit was not maintainable and the learned Court below had erred in exercise of jurisdiction. Shri Labiri has also submitted that on merits too, the petition for restoration was not correct, and the learned Court below had gravely erred in making the order of restoration of the suit which was 'perverse.' Shri Lahiri has in the other revision, submitted that just because the suit has been restored it did not follow that Misc. Case should also be restored and it could not ipso facto be revived as held the trial Court. Shri B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent on the other hand, has refuted the above submissions for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the respective submissions for the parties and the materials on record.

5. In so far as the Civil Revision No. 301/84 is concerned, the main submissions of Shri Lahiri as elaborated are that the Suit No. 98/82 having been dismissed in default on 13.3.84. the power of attorney which the learned counsel for the plaintiff had filed in the suit had terminated or ceased to be operative and consequently said learned counsel ( Shri R-L. Yadav ) could not move application for restoration of 'the suit on 21.3.84 that in any case the power of attorney of said learned counsel produced in the suit could not be construed to cover the power to move application for restoration. In this connection, Shri N.M. Lahiri has referred to the provisions of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereafter the Code to show that in a proceeding under Order IX of the Code, the procedure prescribed for pleading under the Code shall apply. Shri Labiri has also referred to Order IV Rule 1 and Order VI Rule 14 of the Code to show how the proceeding under Order IX Rule 9 could be initiated and the scope of the authority of a pleader who appears for the parties. Shri Lahiri has submitted that the power of the counsel ceases to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document