A.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's application in revision.
(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit against the applicant and certain other persons. The reliefs claimed were specific performance of a contract, recovery of damages and the issue of an injunction. The suit was valued at Rs. 5,39,500. After issues had been framed and the issues of valuation and court-fee had been decided the 18th September 1952 was fixed as the date of final hearing. On the 14th of August, 1952, the applicant made an application (No. 137/C) praying that a copy of interrogatories filed along with the application be served on the plaintiff and he be ordered to answer the same within 10 days time. The Court ordered on the application "Let talbana be filed. Ask the plaintiff's counsel to file replies in ten days." Talbana was filed and on the 25th of August 1952 the Court ordered "Talbana filed. Issue notice to the plaintiff's counsel who will file replies of the interrogatories in ten days." On the 4th of September 1952, the plaintiff applied for extension of time for the filing of the reply and time was extended by 15 days i.e. till 19-9-52. No replies were, however, filed. On the 18th September 1952 when the case came up for final hearing the plaintiff applied for adjournment on the ground of illness. The case was adjourned to the 18th and 19th of November 1952 on payment of costs. On the 23rd of September 1952 the defendant, now the applicant, made an application praying that the suit be dismissed because the plaintiff had not filed replies to the interrogatories within the time allowed by the court. The application was allowed and the suit was dismissed on that very date. The plaintiff then applied for the restoration of the case and after hearing the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge who was dealing with the case allowed the application, set aside the order of dismissal and restored the case to its original number. He also permitted the defendant to reply to the interrogatories within three days. The replies were filed within the time allowed.
(3.) The present application in revision has been filed against the order restoring the suit and setting aside the order of dismissal. It is contended in support of the application that the suit had been dismissed under Order 11, Rule 21, Civil Procedure Code. The order was appealable. The plaintiff did not avail of that remedy. He could not therefore invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for getting the relief which was open to him but which had not been pursued by him. The court too had no jurisdiction in exercise of its inherent powers to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore the suit when a specific remedy provided by the Code was open to the plaintiff but had not been pursued by him. Reliance is placed in support of the contention on two cases Nageshar Prasad v. Gudri Lal Narain Das, AIR 1933 Allahabad 382 and Chander Bhan Singh v. Lallu Singh, AIR 1947 Allahabad 343 .;