A suit for recovery of debt filed in the Court of learned District Judge Kupwara by the J&K Bank Ltd. Langate Branch, plaintiff (respondent therein) against the defendants-borrowers (petitioners herein) was withdrawn by the counsel representing the bank on a mistaken belief that the debt claimed had become payable by the Central Government in pursuance of a scheme. The court, believing the statement, dismissed the suit as withdrawn. The said dismissal was sought to be set aside on the sole ground that the statement made by counsel was not well Mounded on facts, for, the amount exceeds the limit prescribed under the scheme. The respondents were put on notice and after hearing LC for the parties, the suit was restored by order dated 08/04/1999 which is questioned on the ground which is reproduced hereunder: "That the said order does not lie under Order 9 of the C.P.C., because it was not a dismissal for non-appearance of the respondents and as such the order is violative to the said norms and rules laid down in the C.P.C." This ground of challenge has been dealt with by the Ld. District Judge in following words: "I am aware of the fact that the present petition does not lie under order 9 of C.P.C..., I therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me under Section 151 C.P.C., set aside the dismissal of the suit... let the suit be restored to its original number......." 3. It is manifest from the judgment impugned that the suit has been restored by exercising the powers under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C) and not under Order 9 C.P.C. Obviously, the ground of challenge is bereft of justification and fails. 4. A question may arise, although not taken in this revision petition, as to whether inherent jurisdiction could be exercised for restoration of the suit. The answer is bound to be in the affirmative because there is not specific provision in the C.P.C. which could be invoked to seek the restoration of the suit when dismissed in the circumstances of this case. I may hasten to add that power is not to be exercised because it is available but it has to be exercised only when exercise becomes necessary to do justice to the parties. 5. Whether Court below was required to exercise the jurisdiction needs to be appreciated in the factual matrix of the case. I may hasten to add that power is not to be exercised because it is available but it has to be exercised only when exercise becomes necessary to do justice to the parties. 5. Whether Court below was required to exercise the jurisdiction needs to be appreciated in the factual matrix of the case. Admittedly, the suit is for recovery of Rs. 93,297.00, whereas the scheme evolved by the Central Government gives benefit in respect of an amount not exceeding 50,000.00. It is also undisputed that the suit was dismissed in consequence to the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff (respondent herein) making the court to believe that the suit amount falls within the pecuniary limits envisaged by the scheme which is factually unrounded. The facts crystalize that dismissal of the suit has occasioned because of an incorrect statement made by the counsel. In the backdrop, it can be very safely inferred that had the court refused to exercise the jurisdiction. The plaintiff (respondent herein) could have lost a valuable right to claim the outstanding and refusal to restore the suit would not only cause injustice to the respondents but it would amount to doing violence to the cardinal principle of law that a litigant cannot be penalized for the negligence of his counsel. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. District Judge was wholly justified to exercise the inherent powers under Sec. 151 C.P.C. to undo the wrong which the respondent had suffered due to negligence of the counsel. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this revision petition has no merit and is dismissed along with CMPS. 8. No order as to costs.