Byers, J.

1. These petitions arise out of the dismissal of two applications brought Under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., for the restoration to the file of the lower Court of two petitions Under Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act. The facts in so far as they are necessary are that on an adjourned hearing date the petitioners vakil was absent and an adjournment of some 15 minutes or so to enable him to be present was refused. The petitions were dismissed and on the same day two petitions for restoration, supported by the necessary affidavit were presented, but the learned District Munsif dismissed them on the ground that Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., did not apply to proceedings Under Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act. He relied on the decision of Burn J. in Khizar Mohamed v. Addul Razack Sahib 2 M.L.J. 88 which was followed by me in Subbama v. Venkatareddi A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 260. The argument now presented is that although Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code applies in terms only to suits, this remedy is made applicable by Section 141 of the Code to all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. In support of the argument reliance has been placed on the decision of Wadsworth J.