( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Misce No. 12/1974, whereby the learned Judge has set saide an ex-parte dismissal of a reference. ( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way : the Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore, referred an acquisition matter to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act. The court registered the reference and issued notice to the claimant to appear before it on 1-2-1974. When the case was called on that day, the claimant was not present. Evidently, he was not served by that time. The Court did not issue any fresh notice instead, it adjourned the matter to 23-2-1974. In the meantime, the claimant was served on 5-2-1974 by the notice whereby he was called upon to appear on 1-2-1974. On 23-2-1974 when the case was called, none appeared for the claimant. The Court, therefore, made an order as follows: "service held sufficient. The G. P. files memo of appearance for the respondent. Claimant is absent and is placed ex-parte. Order on 28-2-1974. " on 28-2-1974, the following order was passed: "petition dismissed as it does not survive for consideration. No costs. " what the Court meant by the above order, as it appears to me, is that since the claimant was not represented, the matter did not require consideration. The claimant, after coming to know of the dismissal of his case, filed an application praying for an order to set aside the ex-parte dismissal of his case. The application was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with S. 151 C. P. C. It was urged before the lower Court, for the Land Acquisition Officer, that the Court has no power to set aside its previous order either under Order 47 rule 1 or under S. 151 C. P. C. The learned Judge, however, allowed the application by observing:"1 am inclined to come to the conclusion that the instant case before me is one which comes within the category of an error apparent on the face of the record' he further added : there are strong materials to hold that the orders passed by this court were due to mistake and error apparent on the face of the record. . . . . It appears to me that this is a fit case for exercising the inherent power of the Court. " ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) FROM the tenor of the order, it seems to me, that the learned Civil judge invoked the inherent power of the Court to set aside the ex-parte dismissal of the case and not me power conferred under Order 47 Rule 1. In my judgment, he was right in doing so, because the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1. The short question, therefore, is, whether the Court was justified in invoking the inherent power ? li me Court commits a mistake tnereby causing injustice to any party before it, the Court would be under legal obllgation to correct such mistake so as to render justice to the party. The power conferred by S. 151 is meant for that purpose. ( 5 ) LET me now see whether there was any mistake committed by the court. The summons to the claimant was issued asking him to appear on 1-2-1974. The summons was served on him on 5-2-1974. When the case was called on 1-2-1974, the claimant was not present because he was not served by then. The case was adjourned to 23-2-1974 and again to 28-2-1974 without issuing any fresh summons. The claimant could not have been present on any one of the aforesaid dates, because he was nor called upon to appear on those dates. The Court should have followed the procedure provided by order IX Rule 6 C. P. C. Order IX Rule 6 provides: " (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appeal' when the suit is called on for hearing, then- (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b) if it is not proved that the summons was duly served, the court shall direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant; by these provisions, it is obligatory for the Court to issue fresh summons asking the party to be present on a particular date, if it is proved that the earlier summons was not duly served on the party before the date specified in the summons. According to this Rule, the lower Court ought to have issued a fresh summons on 1-2-1974 since the claimant was not served within a reasonable time before 1-2-1974. Omission to issue such summons was a clear error committed by the Court, which has deprived the claimant his right to prosecute the reference. The Court, therefore, was justified in invoking the inherent power to set aside its unjust order. ( 6 ) THE order made by the Court under S. 151 C. P. C. is not appealable. The present appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. ( 7 ) THERE is one other reason why I should not entertain this appeal. Even if the claimant was ex-parte, the Court could not have dismissed the reference for non-prosecution. In M. S. . Ramiah v. Spl Land Acquisition Officer (1974) 1 Kar. L. J. 231. it was observed that where the claimant remains absent or does not produce evidence, it is not open to the Court to reject the reference in limine. The Court has to apply its mind and determine the compensation in accordance with the settled principles of valuation on the basis of the data available on record. In the instant case, no such award was passed. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed but no costs. --- *** --- .