This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against an order dated 22.6.81 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2 at Gauhati in Miscellaneous (J) Case No.1 of 1981 arising out of Title Suit No. 4 of 1980. 2. The opposite party instituted a Title Suit, the subject matter of which is a valuable land in the city of Gauhati. The suit was posted for hearing on 19.12.80. "Haziras" or the attendance of both the parties were duly filed. However, when the suit was called for hearing the parties were found absent and the suit was dismissed for default on 19.12.80. The plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit stating that an anomaly situation cropped up in and around the Court precinct on 19.12.80 which compelled him to flee away from the Court and as such he could not be present in the Court when the suit was called for hearing. The plaintiff filed the application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff examined himself and also examined an Advocate and proved that on 19.12.80 at 10-35 a serious situation was created for which Central Reserve Police Force-had to be called. They used tear gas to disperse some Satya-gratis in connection with agitation on the Foreigners' issue. Appearance of the CRPF and action taken resulted in people running helter-skelter for shelter. Under such circumstances the plain tiff had to leave the Court compound and he was sure that under the prevailing circumstances Court would not function and it would not be possible to take up the hearing of the suit. In fact for personal safety, the plaintiff went home. Now, what was the position as stated by the defendant. He filed his 'Hazira' but he was found absent on call. Of course he does not admit of such a tense situation on that day yet what he stated was significant. He admitted that he left the Court thinking that "Court might not function on that day". Therefore, the defendant had the impression, for whatsoever reasons, that tie Court would not function on that day. 3. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined himself, he described the tense situation that prevailed and the learned Munsiff reached the conclusion that the plaintiff had the impression that there would be no Court on that day.
Therefore, the defendant had the impression, for whatsoever reasons, that tie Court would not function on that day. 3. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined himself, he described the tense situation that prevailed and the learned Munsiff reached the conclusion that the plaintiff had the impression that there would be no Court on that day. In support of his case an Advocate of Gauhati Bar was examined, who stated that the situation within the Court precinct was serious and tear gas had to be used by the CRPF in order to disperse a "mob", From the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness, the learned Munsiff concluded that there prevailed a very tense situation for which it was reasonable for a litigant to presume that the Court would not function on that day. Considering the tense situation and the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Munsiff concluded that it was a fit case for restoration of the suit and accordingly restored the suit to file. 4. Against the impugned order this revision has been preferred. It is not disputed at the bar that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was sufficient ground for restoration of the suit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to restore the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of "the Code" because both the parties were absent and the dismissal was under Order 9 Rule 3 of "the Code". At the same time counsel for the petitioner submits that when a suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 it can be revived under Order 9 Rule 4 of "the Code". A mistake in quoting a wrong provision of the Code does not make an order illegal. The crucial question should be whether the Court had jurisdiction to restore the suit to file. The Court had jurisdiction to restore the suit under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, That apart, it had inherent power, even where the provisions of Order 9 were not applicable to restore a suit to file to uphold the cause of justice. This position is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. No other point has been urged other than the one I have just alluded. 5. For the foregoing reason I do not find any merit in the application.
This position is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. No other point has been urged other than the one I have just alluded. 5. For the foregoing reason I do not find any merit in the application. Accordingly I dismiss the application. Send down the records forthwith.