SHANTI DEVI Vs. INDRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 20th August, 1977.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, which are relevant or the disposal of this revision petition, are that the suit was dismissed in default on 16th April, 1977. An application for restoration of the suit was filed on the same day. The notice of the restoration application was given to the learned Counsel for the defendant who endorsed on the back of the notice that his power has terminated with the dismissal of the suit. It appears that the learned Munsiff had decided this question on 25th May, 1977, that the power of attorney of the learned Counsel did not terminate with the dismissal of the suit in default. The application for restoration was eventually allowed on 20th August, 1977. The defendant -petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order of restoration has came up in revision before this Court.

(3.) THE contentions of the learned Counsel for the defendant -petitioner have been considered. Having given my most anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel I find myself completely unable to accept his contention. A suit dismissed in default may be restored under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 4, CPC. The power of attorney in favour of the learned Counsel for the defendant does not terminate when the suit is dismissal in default. The explanation added to Order 3, Rule 4(2), CPC is only by way of abundant caution to clarify doubts. It is not exhaustive and does not restrict that even the restoration proceedings may not be deemed to be proceedings in the suit. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, has been enacted with a view to simplify the proceedings of litigation and to avoid delays. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant -petitioner is accepted, then the very purpose of the Amending Act would be defeated.