JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(w) [wrongly indicated as Rule 1(r)] is directed against order dated 25.10.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 114 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Order IX, Rule 9, 4, & 7 read with Section 151 CPC has been accepted and order dated 30.01.2015 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 215/2012 has been recalled and the Original Application i.e. Case No. 16/2010 (45A/97) has been restored. 2. The respondent-plaintiff initiated proceedings for maintenance under provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 on 05.02.1997. The proceedings, after going through various stages, were apparently fixed at the stage of final arguments and applicant had filed her written arguments also when on 19.12.2011 the application in absence of the applicant/her counsel was dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. The applicant filed application under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of the proceedings. 4. The said application also remained pending and on 30.01.2015 the restoration application, on account of nonappearance of the applicant, came to be dismissed in default. 5. An application was filed on 18.02.2015 titling it as application under Section 114 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Order IX, Rule 9, 4, & 7 read with Section 151 CPC. 6. The application was resisted by the appellant-defendant. 7. The trial court by its order dated 25.10.2017 came to the conclusion that the reason for non-appearance of the applicant on 19.12.2011, when her original application was rejected for non-prosecution, was for a legal and justified cause and as while passing the order dated 30.01.2015 documents were not available on record, the same could not be brought to the notice of the Court and that if the said documents were taken into consideration, the order dated 30.01.2015 could not have been passed and, consequently, recalled the order dated 30.01.2015 and thereafter allowed the application seeking restoration of the original application, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.12.2011. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in accepting the application of the respondent, inasmuch as, there is no provision in law for restoration of an application for restoration, which has been dismissed in default. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in accepting the application of the respondent, inasmuch as, there is no provision in law for restoration of an application for restoration, which has been dismissed in default. It was submitted that provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 CPC are not applicable in case of dismissal of a restoration application and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. 9. Further submissions were made that the prayer for review under Section 114 CPC also was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on face of record so as to review the order dated 30.01.2015. Submissions were also made that the reason indicated by the applicant for non-appearance on 19.12.2011 were not germane and, therefore, the order impugned dated 25.10.2017 passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. The respondent No. 1 appearing in person supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the application was filed for review under Section 114 CPC and the trial court has rightly exercised the power of review qua the order dated 30.01.2015; as the respondent was prevented, by sufficient cause in not appearing before the Court on 19.12.2011, the trial court was justified in reviewing and setting aside the orders dated 30.01.2015 and 19.12.2011 and restoring the original application and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 11. It was submitted that on 19.12.2011 when the matter was fixed, before that on 16.12.2011, the applicant had already sent a telegram indicating her inability to attend the proceedings, which was duly received by the Court and as the respondent pursuant to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was required to give her presence at Central School, Suratgarh where she was transferred, it cannot be said that the same was not a reasonable cause for non-appearance and/or for the Court to refuse grant of adjournment and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 in person. 13. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 in person. 13. As already noticed hereinbefore, the proceedings [Case No. 16/2010 (45A/97)] initiated by the respondent in the year 1997 were pending consideration before the trial court, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.12.2011. The respondent filed application (215/12) for restoration, which also came to be rejected on 30.01.2015, regarding which, application (68/2016) seeking review/restoration was filed by the respondent, which has been allowed by the trial court. 14. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as under :- ^^vr% izkFkhZ;k ds }kjk fnukad 18-2-15 dks izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ckcr fjO;w varxZr /kkjk 114 lh-ih-lh- lifBr /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- ,oa varxZr vkns’k 9 fu;e 9] 4] 7 lifBr /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj fd;k tkdj nhokuh fofo/k izdj.k la- 215@212 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 30-1-15 dks fjdkWy fd;k tkus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA rFkk izkFkhZ;k ds ewy izkFkZuk i= ij ntZ izdj.k la- 16@10 ¼ 45 , @97½ dks jsLVksj fd;k tkdj iqu% mlh uEcj ij ntZ jftLVj djus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA i=koyh QSly ’kqekj gksdj layXu ewy izdj.k jgsA** 15. A perusal of the above order indicates that the trial court essentially has recalled the order dated 30.01.2015 and has allowed the application for restoration (215/12). The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure do not provide for recall of the order, which power either can be traced to provisions of Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC and/or Section 151 CPC and, therefore, apparently the trial court has exercised the power of review while recalling the order dated 30.01.2015. The said power, is very much available to the Court, if the case falls within the parameters as prescribed and, therefore, the plea raised regarding non-maintainability of the application as such, has no substance. The submissions as to whether the parameters for review are fulfilled or not would be examined separately. 16. Besides the above, the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that application under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of an application for restoration dismissed in default, is not maintainable, also has no substance. 17. It would be appropriate to notice provisions of Section 141 CPC, which read as under:- “141. Miscellaneous proceedings. 16. Besides the above, the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that application under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of an application for restoration dismissed in default, is not maintainable, also has no substance. 17. It would be appropriate to notice provisions of Section 141 CPC, which read as under:- “141. Miscellaneous proceedings. - The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suit shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. [Explanation.- In this section, the expression “proceedings” includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution.” 18. A bare perusal of the above provision would reveal that the procedure provided in the Court with regard to suit is to be followed in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction and the explanation, which was inserted in the year 1976, specifically provides that the expression “proceedings” would include proceedings under Order IX. 19. The above provision clearly provides for applicability of provisions of Order IX to dismissal in default of an application under Order IX itself and, therefore, the plea raised regarding non-applicability of provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 CPC essentially has no substance. 20. Besides the above, when a suit, which is dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff can be restored on satisfying the Court that the plaintiff was prevented by some sufficient cause from appearing before the Court, there is on reason why, when an application under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC is likewise dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant, the applicant should be denied an opportunity to satisfy the Court that he was prevented by reason of a sufficient cause from appearing before the Court when the application was called on for hearing. 21. In view of the above, an application under Order IX for restoration of an application filed under Order IX, dismissed in default, would be very much maintainable and, therefore, the alternative plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant also has no substance. 22. 21. In view of the above, an application under Order IX for restoration of an application filed under Order IX, dismissed in default, would be very much maintainable and, therefore, the alternative plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant also has no substance. 22. So far as the submission that there was no error apparent on face of record so as to review the order dated 30.01.2015 by the trial court is concerned, a perusal of the order impugned reveals that while passing the order dated 30.01.2015 the Court had observed that no telegram as contended by the applicant regarding adjournment of proceedings on 19.12.2011 was received, however, the said fact was factually incorrect, inasmuch as, a telegram dated 16.12.2011 was very much available on record of the trial court seeking adjournment and, therefore, there was clearly an error apparent on face of record while passing the order dated 30.01.2015 justifying a review/recall of the order. 23. The respondent had clearly demonstrated that on account of order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, pertaining to her service matter, as she is a Teacher with the Central School, she was required to join at Suratgarh on 19.12.2011 and was present in the said School from 19.12.2011 to 22.12.2011 and a certificate in this regard was produced, which was not taken into consideration by the trial court, and that she was prevented by sufficient reason from appearing on 19.12.2011. 24. In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the application filed by the respondent under Section 114 CPC and/or Order IX, Rule 9 CPC was maintainable, there was error apparent on face of record of the trial court while passing order dated 30.01.2015 and that there was sufficient reason for the respondent for nonappearance on 19.12.2011, the trial court was fully justified in passing the order impugned, which does not call for any interference. 25. In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. As the proceedings are pending for a long time, the trial court is directed to deal with the matter most expeditiously. No order as to costs.