1. What is the period of limitation for filing an application for restoration of the application dismissed in default? is the question arising for consideration in this revision.

2. The petitioner filed two applications one under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte judgment and decree and the order under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Initially both the applications were being tried together but after sometime these were listed for hearing separately. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was listed for hearing on 30.9.1999. The petitioner did not appear on the said date so it was dismissed in default, however the other application continued to be listed on various dates till 6.9.2000 when the counsel for the respondent took the stand that in view of dismissal of application under Section 5, the other application under Order 9, Rule 13 cannot proceed and thus petitioner was informed about the dismissal in default of his application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on 4.9.2000. The petitioner however filed application for restoration of the same on 9.12.2000. Ld. trial court dismissed the restoration application by its order dated 31.10.2001 impugned in the present revision mainly on the ground that there has been inordinate delay of three months in filing the application.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has suffered the dismissal of his application because of the act of the court as the trial court ought to have posted and heard both the applications together on the same date. According to him no party to a case should suffer for an inappropriate act of a court and therefore by invoking inherent power vested in it under Section 151 C.P.C the restoration should have been allowed.

4. In catena of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court an axiomatic rule of law has been laid down that inherent power will not be invoked if the Civil Procedure Code does contain specific provision which would meet the necessities of the case in question. In AIR 1970 SC 997 it was held:

"Under the inherent power of courts recognised by S. 151, C.P.C., a court has no power to do that which is prohibited by the Code. Inherent jurisdiction of the court must be exercised subject to the rule that if the Code does contain specific provisions which would meet the necessities of the case, such provision should not be invoked. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code where a party had his remedy provided else where in the Code and he neglected to avail himself of the same. Further the power under Section 151 of the Code cannot be exercised as an appellate power."

5. So before inherent power is invoked it is to be seen as to whether there is any provision in the Code which deals with the restoration of an application dismissed in default.

6. In the case of dismissal of a suit in default the restoration application lies under the provision contained in Order 9 Rule 9 and the period of limitation for filing such application is provided as 30 days by Article 163 of the Limitation Act which is as follows:

"163. By a plaintiff for an order to set aside a dismissal for default of appearance or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs."

Thirty days.

The date of the dismissal.

7. As regards dismissal in default or an application and restoration thereof, there is no direct provision available in Civil Procedure Code, however Section 141 makes a provision for applying the procedure prescribed in respect of suits to all the proceedings in any court of Civil Jurisdiction as far as it can be made applicable. The Section reads as follows:

"141. Miscellaneous proceedings. -- The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction.

Explanation. -- In this section, the expression `Proceedings include

Click Here to Read the rest of this document