Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 30.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.130 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2008; however the suit was dismissed for non-payment of batta; subsequently, I.A.No.130 of 2010 was filed to get the suit restored for which the lower Court passed the order, the operative portion of it, would run thus: "5. Point: Admittedly the suit was dismissed for non-payment of batta on 12.2.2009. But this application is filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. which is not applicable on the present circumstances. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 is applicable only when the suit is dismissed under Rule 8 of Order 9. Whereas the suit on hand was dismissed under rule 5 of Order 9. Therefore the suit which was dismissed under Rule 5 of order 9 cannot be restored as per Sub Rule 2 of Rule 5. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 or even section 151 cannot be invoked to restore the suit but the plaintiff could only bring a fresh suit subject to the law of limitation as per sub Rule 2 of Rule 5 of Order 9 C.P.C. 6. So in view of the discussion made above and the clear mandate made under Order 9 Rule 5(2) the petition is not maintainable and has to be dismissed. The point is decided accordingly. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed with cost." 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that there is absolutely no bar for getting the said suit restored which was dismissed for non-payment of batta. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court in holding the view that as per Order 9 Rule 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petition to restore the suit is not tenable? The Point: 7. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court in holding the view that as per Order 9 Rule 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petition to restore the suit is not tenable? The Point: 7. The lower Court totally and completely misinterpreted the law and passed such order as though Order 9 Rule 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is an embargo to get the suit restored which was dismissed for non-payment of batta. No doubt, if the suit is dismissed for non-payment of batta by the plaintiff for getting the suit summons served, a fresh suit can be filed, but it does not mean that the Court has no power to restore the very same suit after recording sound reasons in the petition filed by the plaintiff for getting the suit restored. 8. Here, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would substantiate by pointing out that there was some communication gap between the revision petitioner and her lower Court Advocate and wherefore, within time, the batta could not be paid. 9. Taking into account the pros and cons of the matter, I am of the view that one more opportunity could be given to the plaintiff to prosecute the very same suit. Accordingly, the point is answered accordingly. 10. On balance, I.A.No.130 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, is allowed, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only) payable by the revision petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the defendant failed to receive the same, the plaintiff could deposit the same in Court as per law. 11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.