A dismissal for non-prosecution should be contested through appeal rather than revision; limitations can be extended for filing an appeal.

ORDER

Heard Mr.C.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Though I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit ought not to have been dismissed for non-prosecution without noticing that the suit is at the stage of trial and is posted for defendants' evidence, considering the fact that the petitioners have not approached this Court straight away at that point of time, had thought it fit to only move an application under Order IX Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, consequent to the dismissal of the application on merits, it is not open to the petitioner to now turn back and complain that the dismissal of the suit itself was improper and therefore, revision is maintainable.

3. The proper remedy is to prefer an appeal as against the order dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code. I therefore, uphold the objections of the Registry.

4. The Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage itself.

However, since the petitioner attempted to challenge the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.181 of 2019 before this Court by way of revision, the period of limitation for preferring the appeal may be suitably extended to enable the petitioner to move a regular appeal challenging the order of dismissal in I.A.No.181 of 2019.

5. In the event of the appeal being filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appeal shall be numbered and limitation shall not be put against the revision petitioner.

6. Registry is directed to return the certified copy filed along with the revision petition to the learned counsel for the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order across acknowledgment.