PANDIT PITAMBAR LAL Vs. DODEE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by Mr. Justice Mukerji. The reasons for his referring it are contained in the revision order of the 9 of January 1924, and are as follows:

(2.) The question raised in this revision is whether an application for restoration, which was dismissed for default, that application itself being one for the restoration of a suit which was decided ex parte, can lie.

(3.) On this point there seems to be no authority of this Court. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Bepin Bihari Saha V/s. Abdul Bank, 85 Ind. Cas. 613 ;141 C. 950 : 24 C.L.J. 416 : 210. W.N. 30 and the Patna High Court, in the case of Bamghulam V/s. Sheo Deonarain Singh 51 Ind. Cas. 152 : 4 P.L.J. 287 have taken contrary views. In view of the importance of the question, I refer it to a larger Bench. The second question involved in this application is much easier to decide. But as the more important question is to be decided by a larger Bench both the questions may be put up before that Bench.