JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, Ag. C.J. 1. The Defendant in M.S. No. 105 of 1968 filed in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Aska by the Plaintiff-opposite party for realisation of a sum of Rs. 5469 - is the Petitioner. This revision application is directed against the order dated 16-7-1971 passed by the Sub-Judge restoring the suit which was dismissed for default. 2. The suit was posted for hearing to 27-4-1971. The Petitioner by that date had appeared in that suit and filed his written statement and an application was filed on his behalf under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, CPC for examination of the Defendant. The parties had taken all steps necessary for getting ready for trial, and ultimately the case was posted to the aforesaid date i.e. 27-4-1971 for trial. On that date the Plaintiff and Defendant being absent on call, the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. There after on 5-5-1971, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC supported byan affidavit praying to set aside the dismissal order. Thereupon a Misc. Case was registered and ultimately on 16-7-1971 without issuing notice of the application to the Petitioner the order of dismissal was set aside. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that Order 9 Rule 4, CPC is not applicable to the facts of the present case and even if it is, the Sub-Judge acted with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in setting aside the order of dismissal without giving any notice to the Petitioner. 4. The question that arises, therefore, is whether service of notice on the Defendant-Petitioner in the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC is mandatory. This question has been answered by this Court in two decisions. The first in the case of Ratnakar Ray and Others Vs. Kulamoni Roy and Others. It has been there observed by Hon'ble Ray C.J., that in a case where the Defendant has appeared and entered into contest and has filed defence and put the Plaintiff to proof of his case and thereafter the suit is dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 3, CPC and restoration is sought for under Order 9 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure. Notice must be issued to the Defendant before the dismissal order is set aside. Notice must be issued to the Defendant before the dismissal order is set aside. It is' said there that dismissal of the suit at that stage gives rise to a valuable right in favour of the Defendant, which is the right to prevent restoration of the suit. It will be violation of all principles of natural justice to deprive the Defendant of such right without hearing him of giving him adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, before the order of dismissal is set aside the Defendant is entitled to notice. This principle has received support in a later case of this Court Prahlad Pursty Vs. Sheokh Abdul Rahman. The case reported in Ratnakar Ray v. Kulamoni Ray is a decision of the Division Bench of this Court and is binding upon me. I am therefore satisfied that in view of the aforesaid decisions the order of restoration of the suit by setting aside the order of dismissal for default is wrong in law. The Sub-Judge has undoubtedly acted not only in excess of his jurisdiction, but also with material irregularity. In the circumstances, this order cannot be maintained. 5. The Plaintiff-opposite party has on his side contended that the order under revision is not a 'case' decided and as such this revision is not maintainable. For this contention of his, reliance has been placed on the case of Baldevdas Shivlal and Another Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others. Dealing with the meaning of the expression 'case' their Lordships said that a case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and it also includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted to the entirety of the proceeding in the civil Court. The proceeding under Order 9 Rule 4, CPC is a separate proceeding apart from the suit. The disposal of that proceeding in one way or other willfully dispose of some rights as indicated above which have accrued to one party or other by reason of either setting aside or confirming the order of dismissal of default passed under Order 9, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. By refusing to set aside the order of dismissal Plaintiff's rights are permanently extinguished. By restoring the suit, the Defendant's right to prevent restoration of the suit is finally adjudicated upon and determined. By refusing to set aside the order of dismissal Plaintiff's rights are permanently extinguished. By restoring the suit, the Defendant's right to prevent restoration of the suit is finally adjudicated upon and determined. In my opinion, therefore, the proceeding under Order 9, Rule 4. CPC for restoration of a suit, dismissed for default, where Defendant has appeared and entered contest is a 'case' decided within the meaning of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The preliminary objection therefore fails. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I would set aside the order of the Sub Judge dated 16-7-1971 and direct that the Sub Judge shall give notice of the application for restoration to the Petitioner, hear him, if he appears, and take evidence from him, if he tenders any, and thereafter dispose of the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed, but there will be no order for costs.