Waller, J.

1. The facts are these: Respondents suit was dismissed for default. He applied to have it restored under Order 9, Schedule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and that application also was dismissed for default. He then applied again under Order 9 to have the application restored and it was restored. The other party comes up in revision on the ground that the provisions of Order 9 do not govern applications made under the order itself.

2. Authority on the point is divided. The Calcutta High Court has held one way, Bipin Behari Shaha v. Abdul Barik [1917] 44Cal. 950, the Patna High Court the other, Ramgulam Singh v. Deonarin Singh [1919] 4 P.L.J. 287. Phillips, J., in a case exactly parallel to this case has recently followed the Calcutta view C.R.P. No. 1014 of 1924: Venkatanarasimha Rao v. Suryanarayana A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 325. In C.R.P. No. 679 of 1923 Kaliakkal v. Palani Koundan A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 412, Devadoss, J., and I held that Order 9 does not apply to proceedings in execution of decrees. It is now argued that we stated the proposition too widely; in other words, that all that was laid down in Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ullah [1395] 17 All. 106 was that Order 9 did not apply t