JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The claimant in a Land Acquisition proceeding is the Petitioner, the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act having been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge for default and an application against the same under Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, having been rejected by order dated 14-5-1980. 2. Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 124 of 1978 was posted to 31-8-1979 for hearing and the claimant could not appear on that date on account of the fact that he was suffering from diarrhoea. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the said reference for default of the claimant. Thereafter an application under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC was filed before the Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the plea of illness of the claimant and dismissed the said application. 3. At the outset Mr. Misra for the Petitioner submits that under a wrong notion he had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 188 of 1980, but the same may not be maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Charan Sahu v. Collector, 1976 (1) C.W.R.Cutt 1, and, therefore, makes an oral prayer to convert the said Miscellaneous Appeal to a Civil Revision. Since the amount of court-fees that has been paid on the memorandum of Miscellaneous Appeal is quite sufficient and in the interests of justice, the oral prayer of Mr. Misra is allowed and the appeal is converted to a Civil Revision. 4. On the merits of the case, it is contended by Mr. Misra that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the reference u/s 18 of the Act for default of the claimant and for this proposition, the learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in Gopal Charan Sahu's case 1976 (1) C.W.R. 1 (supra). There is divergence of views on this point. The High Courts of Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh have taken the view that the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can be dismissed for default and in that event Order 9 of the CPC would apply, whereas the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Patna have taken the view that the Subordinate Judge would have no jurisdiction to dismiss a reference on the ground of default on the claimant. This Court in the aforesaid decision, referred to supra, has preferred to accept the view taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Patna. It has been held by the learned Judge ...On such reference being made, the claimant does not become a Plaintiff or Petitioner before the Court. u/s 20 of the Act the court has to serve notice on the claimant who had filed the application u/s 18 of the Act before the Collector. If the applicant would have to be treated as a Plaintiff as opined by Bhagawati, J., there would have been no provision for service of notice on the applicant by the court, as indicated above. After notice the court has to make an award u/s 26(1) of the Act and this award is deemed to be a decree u/s 26(2) of the Act. So, a land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed for non-appearance of the claimant under Order 9, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure.... In this view of the matter, I hold that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the reference for non-appearance of the claimant on 31-8-1979. Accordingly, the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 31-8-1979 in Land Acquisition Case No. 124 of 1978 is set aside and the said land acquisition case is restored to the stage where it was on 31-8-1979. The Subordinate Judge shall now proceed with the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed, but there would be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed