Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant-non applicant who, at the relevant time, was Administrator of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. The criminal case in which the plaintiff-applicant was prosecuted for theft was a police challan case. That case resulted in acquittal. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on 13th July 1973 for default of appearance. The plaintiff then made an application under Order 9, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit. This application was dismissed on 21st March 1975 for default of appearance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter made an application on 22nd March 1975 under section 151 of the Code for restoration of his application made under Order 9, rule 4. This application was dismissed on 31st March 1975. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been filed. Held: The application made under section 151 states that while noting the date of hearing of the application made under Order 9, rule 4, the applicant under a mistaken belief noted the date in diary as 22nd March, 1975 in place of 21st March 1975 and, therefore, the applicant did not appear in Court. This application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant which is to the effect that the contents of the application are true to his personal knowledge. It appears that when this application was heard by the Court below, it was argued by the counsel that the mistake in noting the date was not made by the applicant but by the counsel himself and that the counsel by mistake noted the date as 22nd March 1975 in his diary. The case argued before the Court below regarding the cause which prevented the applicant and his counsel from appearing before the Court was not pleaded in the application. In invoking the Court's inherent power allegations of fact on which the power is invoked must be clearly set out. As earlier stated. the allegation in the application only was that the applicant by mistake noted a wrong date in his diary and, therefore, he was prevented from appearing on the date fixed. This was not the case which was argued before the trial Court at the time of hearing of the application. As earlier stated. the allegation in the application only was that the applicant by mistake noted a wrong date in his diary and, therefore, he was prevented from appearing on the date fixed. This was not the case which was argued before the trial Court at the time of hearing of the application. In my opinion, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the trial Court rightly refused to exercise inherent powers. Revision dismissed.