JUDGMENT A.B. Srivastava 1. By means of this revision under section 115 of the CPC the plaintiff- revisionist has sought quashing of an order of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dated 21-10-1981, whereby he rejected an application of the plaintiff for restoration of an application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC. which was dismissed for default and want of steps, 2. It appears a restoration application under. Order 9. Rule 9 CPC was moved by the plaintiff for restoring the original suit which had been dismissed for default. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 1979. However, due to absence of the plaintiff (revisionist) and want of steps, the said application for restoration was dismissed on 11-11-1980. On 7-1-1981 an application purporting to be under section 151 CPC was moved by the plaintiff-revisionist for restoration of the earlier restoration application. The same was opposed by the defendant-opposite party on the ground of being beyond limitation. The learned Civil Judge; upheld the objection of the defendant and observing that the application for restoration also lay under Order 9. Rule 9 CPC and not section 151 CPC to which 30 days' limitation under Article 22 of the Limitation Act: was applicable, rejected the same as being beyond limitatioa in the absence of any application for condonation of delay. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard 4. The sole question arising for consideration is, as to the limitation applicable to an application for restoration of an application tinder Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff revisionist is that limitation in such a matter will be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act whereas according to the defendant-opposite party article 122 will apply. As far as the maintainability of an application for restoration of this nature is concerned, there can be no doubt about the proposition that it will lie under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC itself in so far as the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of a suit is a proceeding in a court of Civil Jurisdiction within the meaning of section 141 CPC. Consequently the procedure provided for restoration of suits would be applicable to restoration of a miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC also It has been laid down in Natboo Prasad v. Singhai Kapoor Chand, AIR 1976 MP 136 , by a full bench of the said court that when an application under Order 9 Rule 9 is dismissed for default, the applicant can apply for restoration of the same under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC or may appeal under order 43 rule 1 (6) CPC. In Mst. Noor Nahar Bewa v. Babindra Nath Deo, AIR 1988 Cal. 538, a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that the application for restoration of miscellaneous case under Rules 4, 9 or 13 of Order 9 which was dismissed for default would lie under Order 9 read with section 141 CPC. As regards limitation for filing the said application for restoration, there being no specific provision ia the limitation Act 1963, such application for restoration would be governed by Article 137 of the Act and could be Sled within a period of three years. It was so held dispite the observation that it is highly inequitable to allow a party to avail longer period of three years under article 137 of Limitation Act to make an application under Order 9 for setting aside the order of dismissal of an application made under order 9 CPC. 5. With respect I find myself in full agreement with law laid down as well as the observations made by the learned Judges in Mst. Noor Nahar's case (supra). It is high time that suitable amendment in the rule and articles of the Limitation Act is made to bring an application of this nature also within the purview of Article 122 of the Limitation Act. 6. There is no warrant for the contention on behalf of the opposite party that in view of the observations in Nathoo Prasad case (Supra), the limitation for an application to restore an earlier application for restoration of suit will be governed by article 122 as it stands. 6. There is no warrant for the contention on behalf of the opposite party that in view of the observations in Nathoo Prasad case (Supra), the limitation for an application to restore an earlier application for restoration of suit will be governed by article 122 as it stands. In fact in paragraphs 25 and 26 relevant in this context the said bench itself held that no appeal lies from an order rejecting the application under Order 9 for restoration of an earlier application under Order 9 made for setting aside the dismissal of the suit, in as much as the latter application is not for an order to set a side the dismissal of a suit. Article 122 of the Limitation Act relates to restoration of a suit or appeal or application for review of revision dismissed for default or want of prosecution. Consequently by no stretch of interpretation the said article in its present from can be held to apply to an application of the present nature, where restoration is sought, not of the suit, but of an application under Order 9. There being no other provision in the Limitation Act the residuary Article 137 will be applicable and the Limitation would be three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In this view of the matter, therefore, the learned Civil Judge was not correct in his approach in rejecting the application of the plaintiff revisionist as beyond limitation on analogy of article 122 of the Limitation Act. The said application being within limitation under article 137, deserves to be considered and disposed of on merit. 7. The revision accordingly succeeds, the order dated 31-10-1981 is hereby set aside. The learned Lower Court shall proceed to dispose of the restoration application on merits Since the matter is quite old one, it shall be disposed of within three months, from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, by the said court. There shall be no order as to costs.