JUDGMENT : R.C. SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This is a Plaintiff's revision against the order of the District Judge, Jaunpur refusing to restore Civil Revision No. 28 of 1973 dismissed for default. 2. The Plaintiff's revision was fixed for hearing on 18.4.1975, but as none of the parties appeared, the revision was dismissed for default. The Plaintiff-applicants applied for restoration of the revision but the application was rejected by the District Judge on the ground that there is no provision for restoration of a civil revision dismissed for default. 3. The only point involved in the present revision is whether the District Judge has power to restore the revision dismissed for default. 4. In his judgment although the District Judge has held that there is no provision for dismissal of a revision for default but once the revision has been dismissed for default it cannot be restored as there is no provision for restoration of the revision like a suit or appeal. 5. The District Judge was not right in refusing to restore the civil revision and committed an illegality in not restoring the same. Once the District Judge was of the view that there was no provision for dismissal of a revision for default the could not have dismissed the revision, but if it was dismissed inspite of absence of provision the same could be restored even if there was no provision for restoration. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on a case in A. Ramamurthi Iyer vs. T.A. Meenakshi Sunderamal, AIR 1945 Mad. 103 . It has been held by the Madras High Court in the aforesaid case that as there is no provision for dismissal of a revision for default, the revision dismissed for default should be deemed to have been dismissed on merit and as there is no provision for restoration of the revision dismissed for default, High Court has no jurisdiction to restore the same. 7. I am not able to agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court. The principle of equity is that one must be given an opportunity of hearing before deciding a case. It the revision was dismissed for default how can it be assumed to have been dismissed on merit. Similar view has been taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kanshi Ram vs. Mt. The principle of equity is that one must be given an opportunity of hearing before deciding a case. It the revision was dismissed for default how can it be assumed to have been dismissed on merit. Similar view has been taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kanshi Ram vs. Mt. Dharmi and Another, AIR 1953 HP 102 . The Hon'ble Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, disagreeing with the view taken by the Madras High court, has held that as there is no provision for dismissal of a revision in the CPC like a suit or appeal, the court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision for default It has further been held that if the court has no jurisdiction to dismiss a revision for de fault and in case the revision has been dismissed by committing an illegality, the court has power to rectify its own mistake by restoring the revision. 8. It is, therefore, clear that if the District Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision for default his order dismissing the same could not amount to a dismissal on merit but only an order without jurisdiction. If the District Judge passed an order committing an illegality by dismissing the revision for which he had no jurisdiction, it was wholly within his jurisdiction to rectify the said mistake by recalling that order and restoring the revision to its original number. The District Judge, therefore, committed an illegality in refusing to restore the revision of the Plaintiffs to its original position and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested under law. 9. The result is that this revision is allowed and the order of the District Judge, Jaunpur dated 29.4.1977 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Judge, Jaunpur for deciding the restoration application of the applicants on merit and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. In. the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.