JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against the appellate order passed by the Second Addl. District judge, Berhampur, in Misc. Appeal No. 10/83 (Misc. Appeal No. 10/1982-GDC) confirming the order passed by the Munsif dated 24-2-1982 in MJC No. 13/82. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : One Sodi Chandrama and her daughter, the present opp. party No. 1 brought Title Suit No. 15/72 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, against the present opp. parties Nos. 2 to 5 impleaded as defendants for mainte- nance and the same was decreed by the Munsif by its decree dated 21-1-1974. In execution of the said decree in E. P. No. 12/78 some lands were attached and were brought to sale which was purchased by the decree-holder Sodi Chandrama on 29-1-1980, prior to the confirmation of the sale the present petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC, laying a claim over the said land by the Strength of a will dated 13-5-1972 said to have been executed by Sodi Lachamma, mother of the judgment-debtor. The said petition was registered as MJC No 5/80. During the pendency of the said MJC No, 5/80 Sodi Chandramma died. The present petitioner filed a petition to grant him some time in order to bring ail the legal representatives of Sodi Chandramma on record and the case was adjourned to 21-12-1981. On that day neither the petitioner nor his Advocate took any steps in the case. Since none appeared at the time when the case was called, the learned Munsif dismissed the MJC No. 5/80 for default of the petitioner. Thereafter the present petitioner filed a petition before the Munsif under Order 21, Rule 106 read with Section 151, CPC (registered as MJC No. 13/82) for restoration of MJC No. 5/80 and to dispose of the same on merits. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif dismissed the said MJC No. 13/82 by his order dated 24-2-1982. The present petitioner preferred Misc Appeal No. 10/82 (Misc. Appeal No. 10/82-GDC) against the aforesaid order of the Munsif, which was disposed of by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Berhampur. The appellate Court confirmed the order of the Munsif dated 24-2-1982, which has been impugned in this revision. 3. The present petitioner preferred Misc Appeal No. 10/82 (Misc. Appeal No. 10/82-GDC) against the aforesaid order of the Munsif, which was disposed of by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Berhampur. The appellate Court confirmed the order of the Munsif dated 24-2-1982, which has been impugned in this revision. 3. The learned Munsif while rejecting the prayer for restoration of MJC No. 5/80,found that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence in taking steps on 21-12-1981, The ground of illness taken by the petitioner was not accepted mainly on the ground that no medical certificate was filed and no evidence was adduced corroborating the evidence of P. W 1 in support of his illness. The Addl District Judge in appeal confirmed the said finding with an additional ground that the evidence of P.W. 1 confirms the position that he had attended the Court on 21-12-1981. The statement of P. W- 1 that on 21-12-1981 his Advocate had not come to the Court has- been construed to mean that unless be was himself present in Court on that day he could not have known about the absence of his Advocate as he nowhere has stated that he came; to know about the absence of his Advocate subsequently. Both the Courts below found, fault with the petitioner that he did not inform the Court that there was no other person to be impleaded in place of the deceasecd Sgdi Chandramma, as the sole legal representative of Sodi Chandramma was, already on, record Haying, gone through the relevant records of the case including the evidence of. P W..I. I do not find any reason as to why the illness of the petitioners should be disbelieved The learned Courts below have proceeded on the assumption that unless corroborated by medical evidence of otherwise the testimony of a witness stating about his own illness should not be accepted. The inference of the learned Addl. District Judge that in the absence of a statement by P. W 1 that he came to know about the absence of his Advocate subsequently, his statement that his Advocate was absent on 21-12-1981 must necessarily mean that he was present if Court on that day, is, thoroughly, misconceived. No question was put to P. W.? as to when he came to know about the absence of his Advocate' on the relevant date. No question was put to P. W.? as to when he came to know about the absence of his Advocate' on the relevant date. No presumption can arise from the aforesaid statement of P. W 1 that he had personally come to the Court on the relevant date and came to know of the absence of his Advocate on that date. In my view there is nothing' on record to disbelieve the plea of illness of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, his application under Order 21, Rule 106 read with Section 151, CPC should have been allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opp. parties raised a point in this revision that MJC No. 5/80 itself was not maintainable after the sale of the properties had taken place. Admittedly the application under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC, was filed by the petitioner before the confirmation of sale. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention on behalf of the opp. parties. 5. It was further contended that the application under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC, having once been dismissed for default the same cannot be restored as neither the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9, CPC, nor Section 151 thereof is applicable A decision reported in 1975(2) CWR 1071 (Labany Mohakudo and Ors. v. Municipal Council, Parlakhemundi and others) has been relied upon for that purpose. It is an accepted principle that Section 151, CPC, will have no application to proceedings in execution which provides a complete machinery of its own to meet such contingencies and consequently Order 9, Rule 9, CPC, cannot be resorted to for restoration of a proceeding in execution which has, been dismissed, for default. There is no dispute at the bar that an application under Order 21, Rule 58 is a proceeding in execution. His. There is no dispute at the bar that an application under Order 21, Rule 58 is a proceeding in execution. His. Lordship in the aforesaid decision held that Section 151, CPC would be of no help to restore such a proceeding as Order 21, Rule 63 provides a complete and efficacious remedy to the claimant whose application has been dismissed either on merit or on default, though 'the aforesaid reasoning for non-applicability of Section 151, CPC, to execution proceeding is not Available on account of the amendment of the CPC by Act 104 of 1976 by which Rules 60 to 63 have been deleted, The inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked where there has been express provision under the CPC for meeting the situation. By virtue of the amendment in the CPC in the year 1976, Rules 104 to 106 have been irserted. Rule 105 read with its explanation includes a claim 6r objection made under Rule 58 and Rule 106 provides for setting aside orders passed ex parte under Sub- tule (3) of Rule 105. Thus the argument that an application for restoiaticn of the proceeding" under Order 21, Rule - 158 CPC, is not maintainable is thoroughly misconceived. 6. Assuming that" the petitioner absented himself and did not take any steps on the date fixed to bring the Legal Representatives of deceased Chandramma on record, the Court should have adjourned the MJC for hearing and on the adjourned date should have censidered the effect if any of non -substltution or non- impletion of the L Rs. of the deceased Sodi-- Chandramma A default to bring the L. Rs. on record would not ipso facto entail dismissal of the execution proceeding. 7. In the result, I would set aside the impugned judgment and allow this revision directing restoration of MJC 5/80 to record and direct disposal of the same on merits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs of this revision. Final Result : Allowed