SUBASH CHAND Vs. SARJOO DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' application under Section 151 C. P. C., against an order of the learned Munsif, Basti restoring the plaintiff's suit previously dismissed by the court for not carrying out the orders of the court and not filing certain documents.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff respondent Srimali Sarjoo Dei filed a suit for the issue of an injunction against the defendant applicant. She obtained an adjournment to file a map. On 23-2-1956, when the case was called up, neither the plaintiff nor her counsel was present. The court passed an order dismissing the suit in these terms :

(3.) It further appears from the record that some time before the case was called up, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff praying for an adjournment on the ground that the Municipal Board had not delivered the map which was to be filed in the court. This application must have been accepted by the reader as it bears the mark 83/C. Neither the application nor the order sheet in English shows that the court passed any order on it or even considered it, but the order sheet in Hindi contains an entry dated 23-2-1956, indicating that the counsel for the plaintiff turned up after the Court had commenced writing its order of dismissal, and at that stage the application for adjournment was placed before the court. The entry does not indicate whether the court considered it on merits. In fact the entry is written in deplorably bad and illegible handwriting which was deciphered with very great difficulty with the assistance of the counsel for the parties. On 27-2-1956 the plaintiff moved the court for restoration of the suit. It is described as an application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. The learned Judge restored the suit by his order dated 23-4-56 against which this revision has been filed. He took the view that Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. did not apply to the present case, but the court had inherent power under Section 15l to restore the suit