JUDGMENT

Broadway, J. - The firm of Seth Prem Chand-Dharam Chand, acting through Seth Baldev Das, filed a suit against Chandu Mal and others carrying on business as a joint Hindu family. The suit first went to the Court of the Munsif at Multan who, after the case had proceeded up to a certain stage, sent it to the District Judge pointing out that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Munsif at Khanewal. The learned District Judge accordingly, on the 9th February 1921, directed the transfer of the case to the Munsif at Khanewal. That officer on the 11th February 1921 caused notices to be issued to the parties for the 3rd March 1921. The notice to the plaintiff firm was sent to Balder Das, who however, had already died and his Munshi Asa Nand reported this fact on the back of the summons saying that the other partners were in Bikaner. On the 3rd March 1921, however, the learnel Munsif passed an orderdismissing the suit in default.

2. On the 30th May 1921, the sons of Baldev Das filed an application for review of the order of dismissal, dated the 31st March 1921. This application was dismissed on the 14th December 1921. The sons of Baldev Das have now come up to this Court through Mr. If tikhar Ali under Section 1 of Act IX of 1919, and I have heard Mr. Anant Ram Khosla for the respondent.

3. Mr. Iftikhar Ali contended that, while he was not asking for a revision of the order rejecting the application for review, he desired to have the order dated the 3rd March 1921 set aside as being illegal, and urged that, when that order was set aside, the order, dated the 14th December 1921, would be rendered of no effect. Mr. Anant Ram, however urged, on the authority of Sewa Bat Pershad v. Karm Chand [1911] 35 P.W.R. 1911 and Ram Lal v. Ratan Lal [1904] 26 All. 572, that an order rejecting an application for review was not open to revision.

4. This view appears to be correct but, nevertheless, I think that this Court would have power to interfere in the case of an obvious injustice. In the present case, however, it will be seen that the petitioners had two courses open to them. Firstly, they could move the Court to set aside the order of dismissal or they could prefer an appeal against that order, and had they adopted the latter course it seems to me that they would have had an excellant case for the extension of the period of limitation.

5. They, however, chose to adopt neither of those courses but proceeded to apply for a review. It seems to me that when the Legislature has given a right of appeal, which right of appeal has not been taken advantage of, this Court should not interfere on the revision side.

6. I, therefore, dismiss this petition but, in the circumstances of the case, leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.