SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. DARSHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary question raised in this revision petition is whether an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dismissed in default can be sought to be restored by another application. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that no application for restoration of the application dismissed in default is maintainable.

(2.) The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It has been specifically observed in a Division Bench judgment reported in Bhajan Singh v. Ganeshi Devi, 1978 AIR(P&H) 257to the effect that an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is competent if it seeks restoration of an earlier application seeking restoration of the suit in the event that a suit and the said previous application have both been dismissed in default. The revision has to be allowed in view of the categorical law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court with which respectfully, I am in agreement.

(3.) The facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered. The application for restoration of an application for setting aside the ex-parte order is maintainable.