JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - By means of this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the Order dated 09.07.1982 (annexure 8 to the petition) passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Moradabad, Respondent No. 1, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order dated 20.05.1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Moradabad, Respondent No. 2. 2. In brief the facts are: Smt. Batool Khatoon, predecessor-in-interest of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for partition against Smt. Kulsum Fatma, the mother of Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and wife of Petitioner No. 5. On the suit being decreed for half share a preliminary decree was ordered to be prepared. During the proceedings for the preparation of the final decree a report was submitted by the Amin after assessing the valuation of the property against which objections were filed by the Defendants. The report submitted by the Amin was set aside and he was directed to submit an additional report regarding the estimate of the valuation of the proposed quarras by 30.04.1977. After notice to the parties, the Amin neither directed the Plaintiff to take necessary steps but at the time of his visit at the spot the Plaintiff decree-holder aid not turn up nor deposited the necessary charges. The Amin submitted a report to the said effect, Chi 20.05.1977 when the case was fixed none appeared for the Plaintiff decree-holder to press the application foe drawing up proceedings for preparation of final decree which was rejected for non-appearance. An application for restoration was filed on 02.07.1977 stating that the Plaintiff was under the impression that the case was fixed on 20-06-l977 and as such she could not attend the court on 20.05.1977. Objections against such an application were filed on behalf of the Petitioners. The application was dismissed on 13.05.977 for default of the Plaintiff decree-holder. The Plaintiff decree-holder filed another application for the recall of the order dismissing the application for restoration. This application was allowed and the order dismissing the restoration application was recalled on 29.04.1978. However, on account of non-impleadment of the necessary parties the application was again rejected on 05.10.1989. A significant fact was lost sight of that later on the necessary parties were impleaded. This application was allowed and the order dismissing the restoration application was recalled on 29.04.1978. However, on account of non-impleadment of the necessary parties the application was again rejected on 05.10.1989. A significant fact was lost sight of that later on the necessary parties were impleaded. The Plaintiff decree-holder preferred an appeal to the court of District Judge, Moradabad, which was transferred to the court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Moradabad, for disposal according to law. The Respondent No. 1 vide his judgment and Order dated 20.05.1977 was set aside and the proceedings for preparation of final decree were restored. 3. The Petitioners have filed the instant petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and Order dated 09.07.l982 passed by Respondent No. 1. 4. Counsel for the parties has been heard. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged that toe appeal preferred by the contesting Respondents against the Order dated 20.05.1977 was not maintainable and as such Respondent No. 1 erred in allowing it and restoring the proceedings for preparation of lineal decree. 1 does not find any merit in the submission. it was on 20.05.1977 that Respondent No. 2 passed the order dismissing the application for preparation of final decree in default on account of the absence of parties. On 20.05.1977 the report of the Amin was received. The earlier reports tiled by the Amin vide paper No. 205G was set aside. It is no where emerging that 20.05.1977 was the date fixed for hearing. After the passing of the impugned order dated 20.05.1977 the Plaintiff decree-holder had preferred an application Under Order 9 Rule read with Section 151 CPC This implication was within time. On the dismissal of this application for setting aside the order dated 20.05.1977 and for the restoration of the proceedings for preparation of the final decree to its number the appeal was preferred. There is no dispute between the parties that such an application Under Order 9 mile 9 CPC was maintainable. However, when this application was dismissed on 5-10-1979 the appeal was preferred. counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that this appeal was not maintainable. There is no dispute between the parties that such an application Under Order 9 mile 9 CPC was maintainable. However, when this application was dismissed on 5-10-1979 the appeal was preferred. counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that this appeal was not maintainable. under 43 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for tiling of an appealing respect of an order under Order 9 Rule 9C Po rejecting an application or an order to set aside the dismissal of the suit. In intent by the impugned order dated 20.01.1977 the suit was dismissed. Upon the dismissal ot the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC appealing provided Under Order 3 CPC was maintainable. It has not to be lost sigtit of that the proceedings or preparation are in continuation of the suit. Learned Counsel or the Petitioners relied upon Smt Ganga Bai v. Vijai Kumar AIR 1974 SC 126. This case does not support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the said case it was held that no appeal would amending for the simple reason that the Code does not provide for any such appeal, n the instant case as the proceedings for preparation of final decree, which were in continuation and furtherance of the suit, were dismissed the Plaintiff decree-holder had every right to file an application Under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC restored and upon the dismissal of such an application, an appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 5. To sustain his contention in support of the impugned order learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents placed reliance upon Ram Kishore v. Kesho Ram 1972 AWR 301 . I respectfully agree with the view expressed in the above case. A person in whose favour a decree has been passed has a right to take proceedings for preparation of the final decree in the court where the preliminary decree was passed. The proceedings for preparation of final decree would be proceedings in the same suit. After a decree has been passed it is open to the party to a suit to whose interest it is that further proceedings be taken, to initiate the supplementary proceedings no doubt at the instance of the Plaintiff. After a decree has once been passed in a suit, the suit cannot be dismissed unless the decree is reversed on appeal. After a decree has been passed it is open to the party to a suit to whose interest it is that further proceedings be taken, to initiate the supplementary proceedings no doubt at the instance of the Plaintiff. After a decree has once been passed in a suit, the suit cannot be dismissed unless the decree is reversed on appeal. The parties have on the making of the decree acquired rights or incurred liabilities which are fixed unless or until the decree is varied or set aside. An order dismissing the suit after the decree has been made is thus without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents placed reliance upon AIR 1924 198 (Privy Council) . In this case a suit for partition was filed. The Court made an order dismissing a party from the array of Defendants. On an appeal against this order the parties compromised and the suit was permitted to the lower court for action. However, on the day fixed by the lower court for this purpose the suit was partly dismissed Under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC on account of non-appearance of the Plaintiff. It was held by the Privy Council that there could be no dismissal after the decree and the order was made without jurisdiction. 6. In the instant case the date 20.05.1977as fixed for hearing of the objections against the report of the Amin but on that date the application for preparation of final decree was dismissed. Respondent No. 2 fell in error in dismissing the suit also on that date. Instead of correcting the mistake even the application Under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC dismissed whereupon the appeal was preferred and was rightly allowed. 7. In Dhanpat Rai v. Badri Dass AIR 1936 Lah 759 a similar situation arose and it was held that the suit was liable to be restored. Even otherwise a court has always inherent jurisdiction to restore the suit which has been dismissed in default doing to a mistake of the court itself. The application for restoration was dismissed on the ground that necessary parties had not been imp leaded while in fact such parties had already been brought on record. A mistake thus occurred which the court was competent to rectify. 8. The application for restoration was dismissed on the ground that necessary parties had not been imp leaded while in fact such parties had already been brought on record. A mistake thus occurred which the court was competent to rectify. 8. In view of the above I do not find any manifest error of law or want of jurisdiction in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition having no force thus deserves to be dismissed with costs. 9. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.