ORDER : 1. This was originally an appeal which by my order passed on 19th January 1949, was converted into a revision. The applicants filed an execution application on 5th December 1947, in the civil Court at Bidwal (a Thikana in Dhar State). The decree holders were absent on 3rd April 1948. For default, the execution application was dismissed. The mukhatyar of the decree holders was present but it was observed by the Court in its order of dismissal that by a circular No.5, dated 8th December 1905, that a party cannot appear by a mukhatyar. An order was passed that the circular should be procured from the Dhar State but the order was, it appears, lost sight of by the office and the circular has not been produced. I do not think it expedient that the case should be kept pending for its production as it can be disposed of on another ground. There is a provision made in the Civil Procedure Code for the dismissal of suits and appeals if the plaintiff or the appellant is absent, but there is no provision made for dismissal of execution applications on this account. Execution applications can only be dismissed for default, for (in?) exercise of the inherent power of the Court. This power should only be exercised where the Court cannot proceed to transact the business fixed for the day or pass orders with regard to future business because some act which the decree-holder should have done has not been done and the Court cannot proceed further. If such is not the case, the Court should proceed in the decree-holder's absence and make such orders as may be necessary and leave it to the decree-holder to inform himself of what was done in his absence. Orders dismissing of execution applications as a matter of routine are being passed by Courts executing the decrees and they are being justified on the ground that the decree-holder can make another application. This is a throughly bad reason for dismissing an application. The Court should realise that all what has been done is lost and the labour of the checking of the fresh application, services of notices, hearing objections making attachments and issuing fresh sale proclamations and many more such acts may have to be undergone again and all without a purpose except the satisfaction of having one case less on the pending file. Such dismissals are unjust to the decree-holders and against the public interest. If the decree-holder's presence is required for the further progress of the case, then only an application may be dismissed and that too if the Court considers it inexpedient to wait or grant an adjournment on payment of costs. Dismissal of execution applications merely on the ground of absence of the decree-holder, without more, is indefensible and cannot be countenanced by this Court 2. I set aside the order of dismissal and direct that the execution shall proceed according to law. The records should go to the Court which has superseded the Thikana Court.