M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4.8.2007 passed by Sub. Judge-IX, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 05 of 2006 whereby the petition filed by the Plaintiff-petitioner under order IX, Rule 8 read with Section 15 C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 26.6.2006 and for restoration of Title Suit No. 304 of 2003 has been dismissed on the ground that the petition is not maintainable.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

The plaintiff file Title Suit No. 304 of 2003 for declaration that defendant No. 1 has no right, title, interest or possession in the suit property and that plaintiff is in rightful possession of the said property. Defendant-respondents on being summoned appeared and filed written statement and contested the suit. Both parties filed their respective issues and the court below settled the issues on 5.5.2005 and the suit was posted for evidence. Since plaintiff failed to produce witnesses, the court below closed the evidence of the plaintiff. However, the said order was subsequently recalled and the case was again posted for evidence. Since plaintiff failed to produce witnesses, the court below dismissed the suit by passing order dated 26.6.2006 purported to be under Order XVII, Rule 3(a) C.P.C. The plaintiff thereafter filed petition under Order IX, Rule 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for restoration of suit. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 05 of 2006. However, the court below dismissed the said application by order 4.8.2007 holding that the said application is not maintainable.

3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the court below has committed serious error of law in holding that the dismissing the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3(a) C.P.C. is a decree and therefore, application for restoration of the suit is not maintainable. Learned Counsel further submitted that the court below has further committed serious illegality in holding that against the order of dismissal of suit under Order XVII, Rule 3(a) C.P.C., only an appeal or review before the appropriate Court is maintainable.

4. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant- respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the suit was posted for evidence and the court below, therefore, rightly dismissed the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3(a) C.P.C. as the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence.

5. Before appreciating the submission of the learned Counsels, I would first like to refer the order dated 26.6.2006 whereby the suit was dismissed applying Order XVII, Rule 3(a) C.P.C. The order reads as under:

Both the parties have filed their attendance through their learned Counsel.

Today is the date fixed for recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. On 9.6.2006 a last chance was given to the plaintiff to adduce evidence.

On perusal of the judicial record, I find that in this suit the issues were settled on 5.5.2005 and the record was posted for recording evidence. After providing eight c adjournments, on 7.7.2005 the evidence of plaintiff was closed. It reveals from judicial record that on 27.1.2006 the then Presiding officer of the Court recalled its own order of closure of evidence. The record was again posted for recording evidence.

After re-opening the record at the stage of evidence i.e. since 18.2.2006 eight adjournments have again been provided to the plaintiff to adduce evidence but the plaintiff has taken all the adjournments wantonly.

In this case altogether sixteen adjournments have been provided to adduce evidence but not a single witness has been examined so far. In spite of repeated directions of the Court, closure of his evidence but re-opened with cost and giving last chance to the plaintiff to adduce evidence - the plaintiff has not produced any witness in Court.

Today an adjournment