( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 115 of 1983 (Rajendra Prathmik and Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shikshak Samiti and others vs. Rajendra Shiksha Samiti.)

( 2. ) THE applicants, aggrieved by the order passed by the Fifth Additional District judge, Gwalior Shri S. S. Trivedi, in Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1983 and Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1983, have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 3. ) PLAINTIFF non-applicant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior against the defendant applicants and also prayed for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure by a separate application. In reply to this application defendant-applicants raised preliminary objections in I. A. No. 3 as to the maintainability of the suit and also prayed for the decision of preliminary objections. After five adjournments, the matter was fixed for arguments on 26-7-1983. On that date counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant and the plaintiff remained absent till 1. 10 p. m. Hence the trial Court allowed I. A. No. 3 of the defendant-applicant and dismissed the application I. A. No. 1 of the plaintiff-non-applicant pending for grant of temporary injunction and the suit was adjourned to 24-8-1983 for filing of the written statement. At 1. 30 p. m. on the same day, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the Court under section 151 of the civil Procedure Code, for the restoration of his application for temporary injunction and in that application cause was shown for the non-appearance. This application was opposed by the defendant-applicants on various grounds and an affidavit was also filed. Arguments of the parties were heard by the trial Court on 24-10-1983 and the case was reserved for orders on 14-11-1983. On that date, the trial Court passed the impugned order and restored the plaintiffs application of temporary injunction, to file. Aggrieved by this, the defendant-applicants have preferred this civil revision.

( 4. ) I propose to examine I. A. No. 3 on which the arguments of the parties were to be heard by the trial Court on 26-7-1983. In I. A. No. 3 the defendant-applicants raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit and therefore they prayed that before the application of the plaintiff-non-applicant I. A. No. 1 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, is considered by the trial Court, this I. A. No. 3 be heard. The trial Court on 26-7-1983 allowed this I. A. No. 3 and further ordered that I. A. No. 1 of the plaintiff-non-applicant be dismissed. I. A. No. 1 contained the prayer for issuance of temporary injunction, but this application was not fixed for hearing on 26-7-1983. On this day, only I. A. No. 3 of the defendant-applicant was to be considered on merits. If this application was allowed on 26-7-1983, then according to the prayer contained in it the suit was to be dismissed and not I. A. No. 1. But the suit was not dismissed, instead, by mistake, I. A. No. 1 was dismissed. In absence of the plaintiff it is the suit which should have been dismissed by the trial Court. It appears that the trial court due to its own mistake, passed an order, which should not have been passed. But in the impugned order the Court admits that this order dated 26-7-1983 was passed due to its mistake and misunderstanding. The Court can set aside or correct the mistake committed by it under its inherent powers. An order passed by the Court due to the mistake on the part of the Court or due to the laches of its office can be corrected and set right, in the interest of justice under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prime duty of the Court of law is to administer justice and to attain this pious end, use of its inherent powers under section 151 is fully justified. (See Shyamsunder vs. State of assam (AIR I97tgauhati 5