JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. A short question is involved in this revision petition as to whether an application for restoration of the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was wrongly dismissed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Sawai Madhopur under his order dated 24.11.1984. 2. The brief facts under which this revision petition has been preferred may now be narrated. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff petitioner in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur on December 12, 1983. In that suit, in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur, March 16, 1984 was fixed for service on the defendant non-petitioners. In the same suit an application under Order 39 rule (1) and (2) Civil Procedure Code was filed which was separately registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 31/84 (250/8,83). Before 16th March 1984 without any notice to the plaintiff petitioner the original suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sawai Madhopur. In the Misc, case in the Court of Munsif Sawai Madhopur, the date was fixed for 19th March. 1984. The petitioner appeared in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur on March, 19, 1984 and an order was made by learned Munsif that since the original suit has been transferred to the Court of Additional Munsif No. 2. Sawai Madhopur, the connected file (Misc. No.31/84 25/8/ 83) be also transferred to the Court of learned Additional Munsif No.2, Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner put in appearance on 24th March, 1984 in the court of Additional Munsif No. 2, Sawai Madhopur. It appears that by that date Miscellaneous file had not been received and therefore, the case was adjourned to 12th April, 1984 for awaiting receipt of the file. It further appears that without any notice by the transferor Court to the petitioner, the original suit was dismissed on 31st March. 1984. An application under Order 9, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 24th November. 1984 by the plaintiff petitioner for restoration of the suit dismissed in default on 31st March, 1984. The learned court dismissed the application under its order dated November, 24, 1984 on the ground that the application for the restoration came to be filed after 7 and half months of dismissal of the suit. 1984 by the plaintiff petitioner for restoration of the suit dismissed in default on 31st March, 1984. The learned court dismissed the application under its order dated November, 24, 1984 on the ground that the application for the restoration came to be filed after 7 and half months of dismissal of the suit. No application of condonation of delay has been filed. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code which was also dismissed by the court under its order dated 21st January, 1985. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel has argued that it was the duty of the transferrer court to have informed the plaintiff petitioner that the suit has been transferred. Even the transferee court had not informed about the transfer of the case to that court. The plaintiff filed an application for restoration within 30 days of having come to know that the suit was dismissed in default. It appears from the perusal of the record that the learned Munsif, Sawaimadhopur transferred the original suit No. 330/83 under the order of the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur to the court of learned Additional Munsif No. 2 Sawai Madhopur before 16th of March, 1984, the date fixed for the appearance of the plaintiff before him. On 31st of March, 1984 the suit was dismissed in the absence of plaintiff. No notice by the transferee court was given to the plaintiff. When the transferor court on 19th March, 1984 in Civil Misc. Case No. 31/84 and 250/8/83 had ordered to transfer that file to the Court of Additional Munsif No. 2, Sawai Madhopur on the ground that the suit has been transferred to that court, the plaintiff appeared in that court on 24 March, 1984 under the orders of the learned Munsif dated 19th March, 1984. On 24th March, 1984 it was ordered by Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sawai Madhopur that the file has not been received and the case was adjourned for 12th April. 1984. Therefore, dismissal of the original suit in default on 31st March. 1984 without notice to the plaintiff was not in accordance with law. The possibility cannot be excluded that 31st March being last working day of month to reach the standard prescribed for disposal of cases, the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2 might have dismissed the suit in default. 1984 without notice to the plaintiff was not in accordance with law. The possibility cannot be excluded that 31st March being last working day of month to reach the standard prescribed for disposal of cases, the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2 might have dismissed the suit in default. The plaintiff after having come to know filed an application under Order 9 Rule (4) within 30 days of knowledge. The learned Magistrate therefore, should have restored the original suit. 4. The learned Munsif in refusing to restore the suit committed an error of jurisdiction more so when the suit was dismissed in default without notice to the plaintiff. 5. I allow this revision petition and set-aside the order of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 dated 24.11.1984. I allow the application of the plaintiff petitioner under Order 9 rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. The order dated 31st March, 1984 of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Sawai Madhopur is set-aside. He is directed to restore the suit to its original number and try it in accordance with law. The parties are directed to be present in the court on 24th February, 1986. The record of the case may be remitted to that Court immediately. 6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner prays for awarding cost on the ground that the court passed the orders for which his client cannot be held responsible. In my opinion, the order of the court should not have been passed and in the facts of this case, the petitioner cannot be allowed costs. Costs are made easy.Revision allowed. *******