ORDER :- This is a plaintiffs application for setting aside the order of this Court dated 2-9-l952 dismissing his revision petition for default of prosecution.

2. The defendants in the case are Mt. Dharmi and Balak Ram. It appears that Sri Man Mohan Nath Advocate appeared for Balak Ram on 20-8-1952 but the other defendant Mt. Dnarmi was absent and she had not been served. The case was therefore adjourned and the plaintiff-petitioner was ordered to take fresh steps against Mt. Dharmi within a week. Steps were however not taken despite a reminder, and, as stated, the revision was dismissed for default on 2-9-1952. The present petition for setting aside the order of dismissal and restoration of the revision was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 3-10-1952.

3. There were two preliminary objections taken by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents: (1) that an application for restoration of revision dismissed for default does not lie, and (2) that the application for restoration is time-barred. With regard to the first objection the learned counsel cited a number of rulings Of these - Court of Wards v. Fatteh Singh, 75 Pun Re 1881 (A); - Umar Din v. Ala Bakhsh, 54 Pun Re 1901 (B) and - Ilachi Ram v. Amir All, AIR 1937 Lah 685(C) have no application. They only say that where the first petition for revision is dismissed for default a second petition for revision can lie. The rulings directly in point cited by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents are - Subbamma v Venkata Reddi, AIR 1943 Mad 260(1)(D), and - Ramamurthi Iyer v. Meenakshi Sundarammal, AIR 1945 Mad 103(E), in both of which it was held that a revision petition dismissed for default of appearance cannot be restored. The point was dealt with more elaborately in the later of the two rulings. It was held that the provisions relating to restoration of suits and appeals contained respectively in O.9, R.9 and O.41, R.19, C.P. Code, did not apply to revisions. It was further held that a revision petition dismissed for default could not also be restored under S.151, C.P.C., because that section did not confer upon a Court the power to exercise a jurisdiction which it did not otherwise possess.

4. With great respect, I am unable to agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid ruling that a dismissed revision petition cannot be restored under S.151, C.P.C. And my reason for thus respectfully differing from that view is based upon the very circumstances referred to in that ruling for holding that an application for restoration of a dismissed revision petition does not lie, namely, that neither O.9, R.9 nor O.41, R.19, Civil P.C., applied to such petitions. In other words, there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of dismissed revision petitions. If so, if otherwise the case is a fit one, a dismissed revision petition should be restored by a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S.151, The reason for this view is the well-established principle that the inherent power of the Court is meant to meet those cases which are not covered by the express provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Bhagat Singh v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670 (F). It is manifest therefore that to apply the provisions of S.151 to cases not covered by the express provisions of the Code is not tantamount to assuming jurisdiction not conferred upon a Court, as observed in the aforesaid. - 1945 Madras case (E). I therefore hold that in a fit case a dismissed revision petition can and should be restored under S.151, C.P.C.

5. As regards the other objection, the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents cites Art.163 of the Limitation Act. If that Article were applicable, the present petition would certainly be time-barred, for it has been filed one day too late. The Article in question is however applicable to appeals. It is, therefore, not applicable for readmission of a revision dismissed for want of prosecution. The 1 earned counsel for the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document