C P PROPERTIES LTD Vs. MATADIN BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this revision under section 115 of the CPC the plaintiff- revisionist has sought quashing of an order of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dated 21-10-1981, whereby he rejected an application of the plaintiff for restoration of an application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC. which was dismissed for default and want of steps,

(2.) IT appears a restoration application under. Order 9. Rule 9 CPC was moved by the plaintiff for restoring the original suit which had been dismissed for default. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 1979. However, due to absence of the plaintiff (revisionist) and want of steps, the said application for restoration was dismissed on 11-11-1980. On 7-1-1981 an application purporting to be under section 151 CPC was moved by the plaintiff-revisionist for restoration of the earlier restoration application. The same was opposed by the defendant-opposite party on the ground of being beyond limitation.

(3.) THE sole question arising for consideration is, as to the limitation applicable to an application for restoration of an application tinder Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. THE contention on behalf of the plaintiff revisionist is that limitation in such a matter will be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act whereas according to the defendant-opposite party article 122 will apply.