Ranawat, J.—This is an application under sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the Munsif, Alwar dated 28th August, 1951 dismissing an application of the plaintiffs for restoration of their suit which had been dismissed for default on 24thOctober, 1950.

2. The facts of the cases are that in a suit filed by the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs. 400/-, 19th of October, 1950, was the first date of hearing, but it was a holiday. The case was taken up on the expiry of the holidays on the 24th October, 1950, by the court, and as the plaintiffs failed to appeal, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs appeared on the 19th October, 1950, but as it was a holiday, they returned to their village under the impression that they would be informed of the date fixed for the hearing of the case. They waited till the 30th of November, 1950. when they tried to find out as to what had happened to their case, and they came to know that the suit had been dismissed for default. As the period of limitation had run against them under Art. 163 of the Limitation Act, they moved a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1, and claimed the benefit of sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsif held that as sec. 151 did not apply to such cases inasmuch as the defendants had acquired a right, by lapse of the period of limitation, the suit could not be restored. Reliance was placed on the decisions in M.V. Sundaresa Ayyar vs. Pacala Sub-ba Rao(l) and Jagmohan Tewari vs. Mahadeo Prasad(2). As regards Order XLVII, Rule 1, the learned Munsif was of the opinion that the restoration petition could not be considered to be one under the provisions of Order XLVII. Rule 1. He also remarked that the plaintiffs had not paid any court fee as required by the law, and they could not be considered to be seriously contesting the petition under the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1 He accordingly dismissed the petition, which has given rise to this revision application.

3. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that as the case had been dismissed for default on a day which had not been fixed for hearing of the case, the court had no jurisdiction to make an order dismissing the suit for default of appearance of the plaintiffs. It is also contended that even where limitation has run against the plaintiff under Article 163 of the Limitation Act, is open to him to apply under Order XLVII, Rule 1, especially under the circumstances of a case like the present one. Reliance is placed on the decision in A.T.K.P.L.M. Muthu Pillay vs. Lakshmi-narayan(3), wherein it was held that under the peculiar circumstances of that case a review application was maintainable, although time for applying for restoration under Art. 163 of the Limitation Act had expired, The special circumstances of that case were that the suit was dismissed on a date which had not been fixed for hearing, and of which the parties had no notice. Reference is also made to Mst. Umit-Ul-Mughni Begum vs. Saligram(4), wherein it had been observed that—

"Where the date fixed for hearing a case happens to be a holiday, the Court is in no way justified in taking up the case on the following day and passing any order to the prejudice of any of the absent parties without duly serving upon him a fresh notice of the hearing."

4. In reply it has been urged that after the expiry of the period of limitation under Art. 163, it is not open to the plaintiff to have recourse to a review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, because the language of Art. 163 is wide enough to cover all the petitions which are directed for the purpose of restoration of a suit to its original number. The decisions in Debendra Nath Dutt vs. Smt. Satyabala Dasi(5) and E. C. Decruze vs. Mrs. L. T. Pitts(6) are referred to, on this point.

5. Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has not been extended in Rajasthan to restoration petitions under Order IX, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The starting point for limitat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document