- (1.) THIS is an application under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949, against an order of the S. D. O., Amber who dismissed the application presented to him under sec. 7 of the Ordinance in default and later restored it.
(2.) IT is against the order of restoration that this revision petition has been filed. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that no provision has been made in the Ordinance for restoration of applications once dismissed. The procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, No. I, of 1951 did not apply to proceedings under the Ordinance which was a self -contained Act and hence the S. D. O. could not restore the application dismissed in default.
(3.) THE reply of the non -petitioner is that the Ordinance does not provide for procedural matters and the general law and rules applicable to suits and applications would apply. The application under sec. 7 of the Ordinance was an application of an original nature and the procedure laid down for suits would apply to such applications according to sec. 145 of the C. P. C. . It is true that in sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, No. I of 1951 it is laid down that nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949, and some other Ordinances. That does not mean that the rules of procedure which have not been provided in the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, would not apply to proceedings under the Ordinance. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance only lays down that on an application for re -instatement the S. D. O. will hold a summary enquiry. The way in which the enquiry is to be held and the procedure which is to be followed have not been laid down. It is presumed that the S. D. O. in making the enquiry will follow the general principles of civil law which are also the basis of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, No. I of 1951. The petitioner has failed to note that there is no provision in the Ordinance for dismissal of an application in default either. Therefore, if the principles of C. P. C. did not apply he could not have dismissed the application in default and should have proceeded with it inspite of the absence of the applicant. On the other hand, if the general principles of procedure were applicable he could dismiss the application in default and also restore it for sufficient reason shown to him for the absence of the applicant.;