Judgment :- 1. The defendant in O.S. 286/87 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry is the petitioner. The respondents herein filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed for default on 11.4.91. Thereafter the respondents filed an application I.A. 887/91 for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 11.4.91. The notice was ordered in the said petition and the application was posted for hearing on 29.7.91. Since batta was not paid and no steps were taken by the respondents to serve the petitioner in the said application on I.A. 887/91 the same was dismissed. Thereafter the respondents filed an application I.A. 1343/94 for restoration of I.A. 887/91 which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The lower court by order dated 23.11.94 has allowed the application on payment of Rs. 150/- by way of cost. As against this, the present revision has been filed. 2. Mr. S. Mahimairaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit was dismissed for default on 11.4.91 and the application for restoration of the suit was filed. Thereafter the said application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.7.91. Nearly three years subsequent to that the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of I.A. 887/91 had been filed. The trial court, without considering the delay of three years, by one hue order has allowed the application filed for setting aside the order of dismissal of I.A. 887/91. Since the order has been passed by non-application of mind, the petitioner has filed this revision. 3. Mr. R. Subramanian, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the application I.A. 887/91 has been filed for restoration of the suit and the same was dismissed. Thereafter I.A. 1343/94 has been filed to restore the said application I.A. 887/91 under Order 9, Rule 4, C.P.C. Since no notice is necessary for an application under Order 9, Rule 4, by mistake, the lower court has ordered notice in the application I.A. 1343/94 and allowed the application. Since no notice is necessary to the respondent in I.A. 1343/94 and the issue of notice itself is improper and without jurisdiction, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order in I.A. 1343/94. 4. I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. Since no notice is necessary to the respondent in I.A. 1343/94 and the issue of notice itself is improper and without jurisdiction, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order in I.A. 1343/94. 4. I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. There is no dispute that the suit was dismissed for default on 11.4.91 and I.A. 887/91 was filed for restoration of the suit. As the respondents did not take any steps to serve notice on the petitioner I.A. 887/91 was dismissed for default on 29.7.91. The respondents filed I.A. 1343/94 for setting aside the order of dismissal of I.A. 887/91 which was allowed by the trial Court on 23.11.94 by passing the following order:— “Today the counter filed. Both sides heard. This petition will be allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- as costs to the other side. In case of refusal, to be deposited into court on or before 6.12.94 call on 7.12.94”. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that under Order 9, Rule 4, C.P.C., no notice is necessary for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default and hence directing the issue of notice in I.A. 1343/94 on the petitioner is improper and without jurisdiction. When the petitioner is not entitled for any notice in the said application, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order in I.A. 1343/94. Moreover, I.A. 887/91 had been dismissed for default and once the application was dismissed for default, the restoration is entirely in the discretion of the Court and the court had exercised its judicial discretion properly. No revision can be entertained against the said order of restoration of the application which was dismissed for default and hence the revision is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. A perusal of the order clearly reveals that by a cyptic order, the lower court has allowed the application I.A. 1343/94 and restored the application I.A. 887/91. In the affidavit, the respondent has stated that the respondents were under the bona fide impression that steps were already taken by way of payment of batta for taking out notice to the petitioner. But only on 29.7.91 the respondents came to know that batta was not paid and consequently the petitioner was not served. In the affidavit, the respondent has stated that the respondents were under the bona fide impression that steps were already taken by way of payment of batta for taking out notice to the petitioner. But only on 29.7.91 the respondents came to know that batta was not paid and consequently the petitioner was not served. On the basis of the above averment, it is for the Court to consider whether there is sufficient cause for the non-prosecution of I.A. 887/91 by the respondents. It can be seen from the records that I.A. 887/91 had been dismissed on 29.7.91 and the application for restoration of the same has been filed after three years. The counsel for the respondents contended that as per Article 2262 of the French Civil Code the respondents are having 30 years period of limitation for setting aside the ex parte decree and as such there is no delay in filing the application and since no question of limitation arises, the lower court has ordered the application filed by the respondents for restoration of I.A. 887/91 which was dismissed for default. I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It could be seen that the suit had been filed on 15.9.87. The same was dismissed for default on 11.4.91. I.A. 887/91 was filed for restoration of the said suit. That was allowed to be dismissed by the respondents on 29.7.91 and subsequently in 1994, the present application I.A. 1343/94 has been filed for restoration of I.A. 887/91 which was filed for restoration of the suit. The conduct of the respondents clearly reveals that they are not interested in prosecuting the matter genuinely. On the other hand, it seems that they are interested only in harassing the petitioner by keeping the matter pending. Even though limitation does not arise still it is the duty of the respondents to explain as to why there was three years delay in filing the application. The thirty years period of limitation may be available for setting aside the ex parte decree or restoration of the suit. The same may not be made available for setting aside the order of dismissal of an application which was dismissed for default. The thirty years period of limitation may be available for setting aside the ex parte decree or restoration of the suit. The same may not be made available for setting aside the order of dismissal of an application which was dismissed for default. When ordering notice in I.A. 887/91 the lower court has fixed the date of hearing and normally as per the procedure the batta has to be paid within 10 days. If no steps have been taken, then naturally the matter will be dismissed for default. It is for the respondents to explain as to why they have not taken any steps forthwith or seek for further time. Once the matter is dismissed for default, within a reasonable period, the respondents ought to have filed an application; especially when the respondent has stated in the affidavit that they came to know about the non-payment of batta as early as 29.7.91. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no notice is necessary under Order 9, Rule 4 can lend support only to certain extent in favour of the respondents. It is the discretion of the court whether to issue notice to the respondents or not. In the absence of the statutory requirement either to direct notice or dispense with such notice, once the court directs notice to the respondents, then the court has to hear the respondents and pass orders only after hearing their objections. 7. In fact the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents reported in Ram Kishore v. Commr. Dhanbad Municipality (AIR 1978 Patna 237) itself lends support for my view wherein it has been held as follows: “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that even if it is held that under O. 9, R. 4 a court is not required to issue notice to the defendant, still once the court concerned thought it necessary to issue such a notice, it could not have passed the order restoring the suit before service of the notice on the defendant. In my opinion, once the learned Subordinate Judge had issued notice to the defendant, although he was not required to do so, he should have heard the question of restoration only after service of the notice but, merely on this ground the order in question cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.” In view of the above said principle, I am of the opinion that the lower court should have exercised its discretion only after hearing the objections raised by the petitioner in I.A. 1343/94. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in The General Manager, Vehicles Factory, Avadi v. Shadrak (1978 TLNJ 332 = 91 L.W. 580) and contended that when a matter is dismissed for default the restoration is the discretion of the court and issue of notice to the respondents cannot be said to confer any right on the respondents to object. That case relates to the delay in representation. This Court has held that there is difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act, i.e., delay in presentation and Order 41, Rule 3. Even in the said case, it has been held that the return has been made not to comply with the requirement of Order 41, Rule 3 and the return was made only in the exercise of the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, C.P.C., and hence the condonation of the delay in representation will also be in the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C. Hence the principle laid down in the said case cannot be of any help to the respondents herein. As the order of the court below is without any application of mind, and as the court below has totally failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, I am of the view that the matter has to be remitted for fresh disposal. In view of the decision that I have taken, I am of the view that the other judgments cited by the respondents need not be considered. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The order of the lower court allowing the I.A. 1343/94 is set aside and the said application is remitted for fresh disposal. In view of the decision that I have taken, I am of the view that the other judgments cited by the respondents need not be considered. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The order of the lower court allowing the I.A. 1343/94 is set aside and the said application is remitted for fresh disposal. The lower court is directed to restore I.A. 1343/94 in I.A. 887/91 in O.S. 286/86 on its file and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. The cost has to be paid to the counsel for the petitioner herein within three weeks from today and only on payment of costs the I.A. 1343/94 will be taken up for disposal by the trial court.