ORDER K.B. Asthana, J. - It appears that the suit was fixed for final hearing on 1-12-1966. On that date a Plaintiff's witness was to be examined. That witness, however, who was an expert in handwriting, was unable to come. The Plaintiff applied for adjournment of the hearing. The learned Munsif passed the following order: Heard. Adjourned to 17-1-1967 for F.H. on payment of Rs. 12/- as costs, by that date, failing which the suit shall stand automatically dismissed for default and non-prosecution. 2. It so happened that the date 17-1-1967 fell in the period during which the Civil court staff was on strike. No work was done in the Court on that date. In the English Notes of the learned Munsif there is an entry 17/31-1-1967 to the following effect: Due to office strike the file could not be put up on the date fixed. Fix 17-3-1967 for F.H. 3. Apparently this note seems to have been, made on 31-1-1967. On 17-3-1967 when the suit was called up for hearing an objection seems to have been, raised by the Defendant's counsel that in terms of the order dated 1-12-1966 the suit stood dismissed. This objection prevailed with the learned Munsif who passed the following order: The suit already stood automatically dismissed on 17-1-1967 in de-fault of the compliance of the self-contained and exhaustive order of the court dated 1-12-1966. 4. On 8-3-1967 the Plaintiff filed an application for the restoration of the suit to its original number. It was stated in the said application that the Plaintiff was prepared to pay the costs on 7-3-1967 and the suit was called up for hearing but the Defendant's counsel declined to accept it because of the objection that the suit already stood dismissed. All the circumstances under which the costs as ordered on 1-12-1966 were not paid were narrated and it was averred that the Plaintiff was always prepared to pay the costs but on account of the circumstances beyond his control due to strike of the Court staff the order could not be complied with, The application was moved Under Sections 148, 151 and Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure. It was also prayed that the time to pay the costs be extended and the order dated 1-12-1966 be set aside. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif by his order dated 22-4-1967. It was also prayed that the time to pay the costs be extended and the order dated 1-12-1966 be set aside. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif by his order dated 22-4-1967. The Plaintiff then filed an appeal. He sought an amendment in his application during the pendency of the appeal for adding in the prayer clause that the order dated 17-1-1967 and 7-3-1967 be also set aside. The appellate court considered the amendment to be unnecessary but rejected the application mainly for the reason that if the amendment were allowed it would have the effect of setting aside the order of the court below. The appeal was then finally heard and was dismissed on 6-1-1968 on the ground that it was not maintainable. The appellate court took the view that the order of the learned Munsif which automatically resulted in the dismissal of the suit could not be said to be an order Under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, not appealable and no application Under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC lay. It considered that the application of the Plaintiff could properly be treated as one Under Sections 148, 151 of the CPC and an appeal against its rejection was incompetent. The Plaintiff has now come up in revision against the said order. 5. I have perused the record. Apart from the technicalities of the matter as to whether the various orders passed by the learned Munsif could be said to be Under Order 9 and an appeal could lie from the rejection of the application of the Plaintiff for restoration of the suit, since the record is before me I am empowered in my revisional jurisdiction to correct it and then pass orders accordingly. I am constrained to observe that the kind of order which was passed by the learned Munsif on 1-12-1966 is not known to the Code of Civil Procedure. I must deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts to pass orders which in their form and substance are not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code or any other law. It is not often realised that such orders always create complications and it becomes difficult to fit them in the provisions of the procedural laws for the purposes of seeking of remedy against them. It is not often realised that such orders always create complications and it becomes difficult to fit them in the provisions of the procedural laws for the purposes of seeking of remedy against them. If the law of procedure is correctly understood and appreciated as laid down in Code of Civil Procedure, it is difficult to conceive of an anticipatory order of automatic dismissal for default or non-prosecution. The type of order passed by the learned Munsif dated 1-12-1966, though cannot be said to be entirely unknown and can be regarded an interlocutory or final order not prohibited by the CPC but the courts ought to avoid passing of such orders. May be in certain circumstances where a court intends a peremptory compliance with its orders and if the circumstances justify to check the dilatory tactics of litigant to put a condition in terrorem, so to say, but that must be done only in very exceptional circumstances. The record in the instant case does not justify the order dated 1-12-1966 in the form in which it was passed. 6. However, the court has always the power Under Sections 148, 149 and 151, CPC to extend the time to do any thing even after the time originally granted had expired, in order to do justice to a litigant if sufficient cause was made out for extension. The court should always lean in favour of reducing the rigour of the penalty which was of its own creation, no matter the consequential effect of the non-compliance of the terms of the said order was the dismissal of a suit or an application. 7. In the instant case under the order dated 1-12-1966 the costs could be deposited by 17-1-1967 which was the next date of hearing. If the Plaintiff had deposited the costs by that date the suit could not have stood dismissed for default and non-prosecution. The substance of the order then was that the costs were to be deposited on the next date of hearing, that is to say, on the date when the suit was actually called for hearing. Under some unforeseen circumstances the business of the court could not be carried on 17-1-1967 and in fact the suit was never called up for hearing due to strike in the office of the court. 7-3-1967 was then the date fixed for hearing. Under some unforeseen circumstances the business of the court could not be carried on 17-1-1967 and in fact the suit was never called up for hearing due to strike in the office of the court. 7-3-1967 was then the date fixed for hearing. On that date the suit was actually called for hearing and the Plaintiff offered to deposit the sum of Rs. 12/- as costs. I think the terms of the order dated 1-12-1966 would be deemed to have been complied as the Plaintiff was prepared to pay the costs on 7-3-1967, which was actually the next date of hearing in the suit. I think the learned Munsif took too narrow a view and he had ample power to read 7-3-1967 for 17-1-1967 in the order dated 1-12-1966. I am of the view that penalty clause in the order dated 1-12-1966 never came into play in the circumstances of the case and the suit did not stand automatically dismissed. Apart from taking recourse to the provisions of Section 148, learned Munsif ought to have in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in him, given relief to the Plaintiff on his application for restoration of the suit. 8. Accordingly I allow this application in revision, set aside the order of the learned Munsif dated 7-3-1967 and direct that the suit be restored to its original number, be heard and decided in accordance with law. The Plaintiff shall deposit costs of Rs. 12/- on the next date fixed for further hearing of the suit by the learned Munsif.