( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this civil revision may shortly be stated as follows; the non-applicant plaintiff Pooranchand filed a civil suit (civil suit No. 31a of 1958) on 25-8-1958 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge jabalpur, challenging the adoption of the applicant-defendant komalchand as the son of one Halkoolal. The suit was dismissed for default of his appearance on 22-4-1959, presumably under Rule 8 of order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the same date an application for restoration of the suit was made by him under Rule 9 of Order 9 ibid, which was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 3 of 1959. This application was also dismissed for default of the plaintiffs appearance on 3-9-1959. Against the aforesaid order, dated 3-9-1959, the plaintiff non-applicant on 30-111959 filed an appeal (Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 161 of 1959) in the High court under Rule 1 (c) of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal was dismissed summarily by this Court on 29-1-1960; and an appeal (Letters patent Appeal No. 13 of 1960) filed against the aforesaid summary dismissal was also dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-4-1960. While rejecting the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench observed as follows:

"the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal summarily as there was no evidence whatsoever to establish that the appellant's absence on 3rd september 1959 was for sufficient cause. The learned Single Judge saw no reason to admit the appeal for giving an opportunity to the appellant to lead additional evidence for establishing that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 3rd September 1959. There does not appear to us any ground on which this appeal can be admitted. It is rejected. "

On the day on which an appeal (Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 161 of 1959) was filed in the High Court, namely, on 30-11-1959, the plaintiff non-applicant had also moved the trial Court for restoration to file the application for restoration dismissed in default of his appearance on 3-9-1959. The application was entitled as one made under Section 151 read with Rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil procedure. In a note appended to the application it was stated that in case the application was not maintainable as filed, it may be treated as an application for review of the order dated 3-9-1959. This application, which was registered as miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 31 of 1960, also came to be dismissed for default on 21-12- 1959, though the Court had noted in the order-sheet that it also appeared to be barred by time as the order challenged was passed on 3-9-1959 and the application was made on 30-11-1959, on 26-12-1959 the plaintiff non-applicant filed an application for restoration to file of his application dated 30-11-1959 dismissed for default on 21-12-1959. This application was not separately registered; and on 1-1-1960 the trial Court restored to file the application dated 30-11-1959 (which had been filed under Section 151 read with Rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoring to file the application for restoration dismissed in default of plaintiffs appearance on 3-91959 ). On the plaintiff-non-applicant's application dated 30-11-1959 orders were passed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 17-10-1960. He held that, though it was conceded that the application was tenable under Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure, it was yet governed by Article 163 of the Lim. Act; ana that consequently asthe application had been filed not within thirty days of the order dated 3-9-1959, it was barred by time. He further held that there was sufficient cause for the failure of the counsel to appear in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 31 of 1960 when it was called on for hearing on 3-9-1959. It appears that during these proceedings the fact that an appeal and then a letters Patent Appeal had been preferred against the order dated 3-9-1959 an