JUDGMENT : S. ANWAR AHMAD, J. 1. This application arises out of an ORDER :passed by the learned Subordinate Judge setting aside the ORDER :of dismissal passed in Money Suit No. 92/14 of 1969/70 and restoring the suit to its original file. 2. The case of the plaintiff opposite party was that hajri was filed on 12.1.1971 but his advocate, Shri Janeshwar Jha, had left for his home in the previous night without informing the opposite party or his Karpardaz. The opposite party attempted to engage another lawyer but before this could be done, the suit was called on and was dismissed. According to him, 12.1.1971 was the date fixed for pairwi only and not for hearing of the suit. An application under ORDER :9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the opposite party which was allowed and the suit was restored to its original file as stated above. The defendant has come up to this Court in revision. 3. The Court below came to the conclusion that the 12.1.1971, was the date fixed for hearing of the suit on merits and not for making pairwi as was the case of the opposite party and that this fact was apparent from the ORDER :sheet of the suit itself. The Court below further found that no instructions were given to Shri Janeshwar Jha, Advocate, and, therefore, he could not have been present on 12.1.1971, when the case was called on for hearing. The further finding of the Court below was that the opposite party had taken the case in a very light mood and on the date of dismissal (12.1.1971) he came to Court at 1.30 P.M. The evidence of his witnesses (P.W.s 1 and 3) further indicated that a bogus hajri had been filed. By filing a bogus hajri the Opposite party played fraud on the petitioner and kept the Court in dark as to the real state of affairs. The ultimate finding of the Court below was that the suit was dismissed for the misdeeds of P.W.s 1 and 3 and the opposite party should blame himself for placing reliance upon them. The submission of learned counsel is that as there is no finding of 'sufficient cause' in the impugned ORDER :, it is fit to be set aside. 4. The submission of learned counsel is that as there is no finding of 'sufficient cause' in the impugned ORDER :, it is fit to be set aside. 4. Admittedly, there is no finding of 'sufficient cause' as required by ORDER :9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure. It seems to me that unless the Court below came to the conclusion that "there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing" no ORDER :setting aside the dismissal could be passed. I am fortified in this view of mine by a large number of decisions of this Court and of the other High Court, vide Surendra Kumar Singh vs. Mukund Lal Sahu, AIR 1949 Patna 68, Haridas Mukherjee vs. Bejoy Krishna Das, 34 Calcutta Weekly Notes 222, Surujmal Keshan vs. Baliram Prasad Shah, 48 Calcutta Weekly Notes 415 and Debendra Nath Dutt vs. Smt. Satyabala Desai, 54 Calcutta Weekly Notes 110. All these decisions lay down that an application under ORDER :9, Rule 9 or 13, Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be allowed under the inherent powers of the Court. It was also laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Doma Choudhary vs. Ram Naresh Lal, AIR 1959 Patna 121:– "It may also be safely laid down that the Court has no inherent power to override express provisions of the Code. Further, in the absence of some special circumstances which amount to abuse of the process of the Court, it cannot grant a relief in exercise of its inherent power when the ends of justice can be served by another remedy provided by the Code which is available." To the same effect is the decision in Baikunth Sahu vs. Mohammad Sadique, AIR 1958 Patna 27, wherein it was laid down that where there is no question of any abuse of the process of the Court or any miscarriage of justice appearing on the face of the proceeding itself, an ex-parte decree cannot be set aside in exercise of the Court's inherent powers under Section 151. The same law was laid down in Ajodhya Mahton vs. Mt. Phul Kuer, AIR 1922 Patna 479. The same law was laid down in Ajodhya Mahton vs. Mt. Phul Kuer, AIR 1922 Patna 479. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 527, Mahendra Manilal Nanavati vs. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 364, Ramkarandas Radhavallabh vs. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1144, Raja Soap Factory vs. S.P. Santharaj, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1449 and Nain Singh vs. Koonwarjee, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 997. It is thus clear that as the Court below did not come to a finding of sufficient cause in favour of the opposite party, it had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte decree. 5. In the result, the application is allowed and the ORDER :of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside. There will be no ORDER :for costs. Application allowed.