- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 18. 9. 1954 upholding the order of the trial court whereby the plaintiffs' application for restoration of the application for restoring the suit was dismissed.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record. The suit which was originally instituted on 15. 10. 1946 in the court of the Collector Tonk, after, passing through various vicissitudes of fortune came up before the S. D. O. Tonk, for hearing on 20. 4. 1953 and as the plaintiff and his counsel were absent the suit was dismissed in default. On 22. 4. 53 an application was presented for restoration of the suit. On 1. 6. 1953 the trial court ordered that Rs. 15/- should be paid as costs to the opposite party on 30. 6. 1953. On this date no costs were paid nor was the plaintiff present. Hence the application was dismissed. On 27. 7. 1953 the plaintiff applied for restoration of his application for restoring the suit on the ground that there was some unavoidable delay in arranging money and hence he may be allowed now to pay the costs. The trial court held that this being an application for restoration of the suit beyond 30 days was liable to rejection. The lower appellate court confirmed the order under the impression that restoration of an application which in itself was for restoration of a suit (dismissed in default was not permissible under the law. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. The point which is involved for determination in the case has been decided by a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1952 R. L. W. 44. It was observed therein that though no application under order 9, rule 9 C. P. C. will lie for restoration of the application for restoration yet the court has, in appropriate cases, for good reasons, inherent powers to restore such applications under sec. 152 of the C. P. C. In our opinion the present case is fit one for the exercise of these powers. The plaintiff had been seeking relief for about a decade and yet the end is not in sight. The non-appearance of the plaintiff on 30. 2. 1953 does not appear to be intentional but was for good and sufficient cause. We would, therefore, allow this appeal1 on condition that Rs. 40/- are deposited by the appellant in the Board within a week for payment as costs to the respondents. In default of payment the appeal shall stand rejected. In case the payment is made within the time the appeal shall be allowed and the record shall be remitted to the trial court for being tried with further in accordance with the law. .;