B. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) HIS revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("code") raises the following question for determination : ( 2 ) IF an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ("act") is dismissed for default, whether an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 of the Code for restoration is maintainable? ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein filed an application under section 14 (2) of the Act for judgment in terms of the Award dated February 16, 1993. The said application gave rise to Title Suit No. 496 of 1993 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. In the said suit, the opposite party filed an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Act thereby praying for setting aside the said aware. The said application under sections 30 and 33 of the Act was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 1984 of 1993. On April 16, 1997, the dated fixed for hearing of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case, as none appeared for the opposite party, the said case was dismissed for default. The opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 of the Code being Miscellaneous Case No. 1372 of 1997 for restoration of the Miscellaneous Case No. 1984 of 1993. ( 4 ) BY the order impugned, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application for restoration being satisfied that the opposite party was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on April 16, 1997 when the application under sections 30 and 33 of Act was dismissed for default. ( 5 ) AS indicated above, Mr. Mukherjee appearing in support of the instant application has contended that if an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Act is dismissed for default, the remedy of the applicant is to file an appeal under section 39 of the Act and Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code has no application to proceedings under Arbitration Act. In support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee has relied upon Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Om Prokash v. Union of India reported in AIR 1963 Allahabad page 243. In support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee has relied upon Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Om Prokash v. Union of India reported in AIR 1963 Allahabad page 243. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid case one of the questions raised was whether the procedure of restoration and setting aside ex parte award applies before an Arbitrator. The Division Bench answered the question is negative. In find no force in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the said principle also applies to a proceeding before a court under the Act. ( 7 ) IN view of section 141 of the Code, procedure provided in the Code with regard to the suit shall be followed, so far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Similarly section 41 (a) of the Act makes the provisions of the Code applicable to all proceedings before court under the Act subject to the provisions of the Act and of the rules made thereunder. The apex court in the case of Munshi Ram v. Banwari Lal reported in AIR 1962 SC page 903 while considering the question of applicability of the provision contained in Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code in a proceeding under the Act held in unequivocal term that by virtue of section 141 of the Code and section 41 of the Act, the provisions of Code applies to the proceedings under the Act. Thus, the apex court having found a proceeding under the Act as a Miscellaneous proceeding of a court of civil jurisdiction within the meaning of section 141 of the Code, all the procedural parts of the Code apply to a Miscellaneous Case under sections 30 and 33 of the Act. Order 9 of the Code is a procedural part as distinguished from the substantial rights created by the Code. (Mst. Nurnahar Bewa v. Rabindra Nath Dev and Ors; AIR 1988 Calcutta 358 (S. B. ). Therefore, the provisions contained in Order 9 of the Code apply to a proceedings under sections 30 and 33 of the Act. Thus, there is no force in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee. ( 8 ) MR. (Mst. Nurnahar Bewa v. Rabindra Nath Dev and Ors; AIR 1988 Calcutta 358 (S. B. ). Therefore, the provisions contained in Order 9 of the Code apply to a proceedings under sections 30 and 33 of the Act. Thus, there is no force in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee. ( 8 ) MR. Mukherjee lastly contends that no sufficient cause was made out by the opposite party in the application for restoration and as such the learned trial Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in restoring the Miscellaneous Case. ( 9 ) HAVING found that the learned trial Judge has jurisdiction to restore the proceedings and the learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence on record having been satisfied about the sufficiency of cause shown, I find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge. No case of irregular exercise of discretion has been made out by the petitioner in the instant revisional application. ( 10 ) BOTH the points raised by Mr. Mukherjee having failed, I find no merit in the instant revisional application and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to cost. Application dismissed