Judgment B. N. Agrawal, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 12-7-1985 passed by the learned Munsif by which he has rejected the application under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Miscellaneous Case no.21 of 1984 on the sole ground that the said application was barred by limitation. 2. The short facts, for deciding the point raised in this case are that an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (here-in-after referred to as the code) was dismissed for default on 11-9-1982. Thereafter it appears that an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code was preferred which was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable against which a revision was filed in this Court but ultimately the same was withdrawn. Later on, in the year 1984 an application under Sec.151 of the Code was filed for restoration of the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. By the impugned order the Court below has rejected the said application on the sole ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing the application for restoring the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the code. According to the learned counsel the only provision which would have applied to such a petition was Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (herein-after referred to as the new Limitation Act) which reads thus ; Article period of Limitation time from which period begins to run 122. To restore a suit or appeal or application for review or revision dismissed for default of appearance or for want of prosecution or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs. Thirty days the date of dismissal. Upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it would appear that Article 122 of the New Limitation Act applies only to such restoration applications which are filed for restoration of suit, appeal or application for review or revision which have been dismissed for default. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code will come within the ambit of the aforesaid provision. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code will come within the ambit of the aforesaid provision. No other provision could be pointed out to me prescribing any period of limitation for filing a restoration application for restoring an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code which was dismissed for default. 4. Now the question arises as to whether the residuary Article, i. e. , article 137 of the New Limitation Act would apply to such an application or not which reads thus : Article period of Limitation time from which period begins to run 137. Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division. Three years. When the right apply accrues. Wording of residuary Article, i. e. , Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the old Limitation Act) which reads thus was quite different : article period of Limitation time from which period begins to run 181. Application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by Sec.48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908 ). Three years. When the right to apply accrues. It has been settled by the various decisions of this Court as well as the apex Court that Article 181 of the old Limitation Act was applicable to applications filed only under the Code of Civil Procedure and to no other application, so far the present application is concerned the same is under Sec.151 of the code of Civil Procedure. Even the residuary article namely Article 181 of the old Limitation Act was applicable to the case in hand, but since the present miscellaneous case has been filed in the year 1984 after coming into force of the new limitation Act which came into force from 1st January, 1964, the question to be considered is whether Article 137 of the new limitation Act would apply to the present restoration application. My answer to the question posed by ms is emphatically in the affirmative. Article 137 of the new Limitation Act is very wide. It takes within its ambit applications filed under special statutes besides applications filed under the Code. My answer to the question posed by ms is emphatically in the affirmative. Article 137 of the new Limitation Act is very wide. It takes within its ambit applications filed under special statutes besides applications filed under the Code. There are various decisions of this court as well as of the Supreme Court that this Article shall apply not only to applications filed under the Code of Civil Procedure but also to applications filed under special statutes. The application disposed of by the impugned order having been filed under Sec.151 of the Code, in any view of the matter, article 137 of the new Limitation Act does apply to the same and the period of limitation prescribed thereunder is three years. 5. An application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was dismissed for default by order dated 11-9-1982 on which day only the right to apply for restoration accrued to the petitioners. Since the present application was filed in the year 1984, the same was well within time. In my view the Court below has committed material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in holding that the application disposed of by the impugned order was barred by limitation. Accordingly I have no option but to allow this application which is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is hereby directed to dispose of Miscellaneous Case no.21 of 1984 on its merit in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the circumstances of the case I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. Revision allowed.