RAHIM Vs. KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a restoration application in a civil revision petition which was dismissed for default on 18 -4 -66. The application for restoration was presented on thar very .day with the allegation that the learned counsel for the petitioner was mistaken about the date of hearing. Objections have been filed by the other side.

(2.) A .preliminary objection has been taken that this restoration application does not lie. It is argued by Mr. Sehgal that powers conferred upon the High Court under S. 115 Civil P. C. are of a special character. If the High Court is satisfied that a court subordinate to it has decided a case exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, the High Court may pass such orders in revision as it thinks fit. The law on revisions is contained in this very section and this section is self -contained. O. 9 or O. 41 has nothing to do with the provisions of this section and do not apply to proceedings under this section According to Mr. Sehgal S. 151 cannot be invoked to entertain an application for restoration of a revision petition dismissed for default.

(3.) MR . Sehgal has further argued that there is a principle and a purpose behind the non -applicability of either O. 9 or O. 41 or S. 151 of the Civil P. C. to civil revisions, because a fresh petition in revision will lie if the original revision petition is dismissed for default The authorities that were cited at the bar as to whether an application for revision dismissed for default can be restored are : -