CRP 182/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Hai, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition filed u/s 115 read with Section 151 of the CPC is an order dated 20.04.2010 passed in Misc . (J) Case No. 4/2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 1/2005 thereby restoring the suit of the plaintiffs regarding the order of dismissal of the suit for default dated 22.1.2009. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No. 1/2005 praying for declaration of right, title and interest for other reliefs w hich was pending for disposal in the court of the learned Munsiff at Udalguri. The suit was set down for hearing on 22.1.2009 but on that day the plaint iffs remained absent without any steps and consequently the suit was dismissed f or default by the learned Munsiff. Thereafter an application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for setting aside the order of dismissal for default and for restoration of the suit to file. The said application was filed on 11.1.2010. As against the aforesaid application the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed a written objection. In the said objection the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the application was controvert whereas in reply to paragraph 8 it was stated that the plaintiffs intentionally and deliberately kept away from attending the court and accordingly he was not vigilant about his right to avail their right within the period of limitation. It is further stated that the application under Order IX Rule 9 was barred by limitation which was filed beyond the period of t hirty days from the date of the order. The learned Munsiff. However, vide impugn ed order dated 20.4.2010 considering the averments made in the petition as well as the objection made by the opposite parties to restore the suit in the interes t of justice as according to the learned Munsiff there are good enough grounds t o set aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default. Challenging the impugned order Mr. Medhi has strenuously submitted that the plaintiffs have neither made averments for not filing the application before the learned Munsiff within the period of limitation nor filed any application f or condoning the delay which was admittedly filed beyond the period of thirty da ys which is the specific period of limitation for filing the application. In suc h a situation the learned Munsiff was not conferred with the jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 22.1.2009 and on such count the impugned order is liable to be revised by this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. In support of his cont ention Mr. Medhi has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in 200 1(9) SCC 717 and 2009 (6) SCC 194. Mr. Hai, learned counsel on the other hand, submits that the plaintiffs could not appear on the date fixed due the situation beyond his control resultin g from communal rioting in the area and this fact has been specifically stated in the application and the learned Munsiff upon overall consideration of the mat ter and the law and order situation on that date as well as being satisfied that the plaintiffs were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the court o n the date fixed for hearing has rightly passed the impugned order which require s no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appearing parties. Admittedly the plaintiffs did not file any separate application for cond onation of the delay, but what it transpires from the averments made in the appl ication that due to the communal rioting which occurred on 14.8.2008 took its ag gravated form from 3.10.2008 in the district of Udalguri and Darrang of the Stat e of Assam and the plaintiff could not attend the court right from August 2008 t o take steps in the suit. It further stated that due to the communal rioting the plaintiff lost everything, their houses were set on fire by the miscreants forc ing them to leave their village and homesteads and took shelter in relief camps. Initially the plaintiffs were put in the relief camp at Bolugaon and subsequent ly shifted to the relief camps which were constructed at Shidakhowa village itse lf wherein they were kept till the month of June 2009. The plaintiffs returned t o their homestead in the 1st week of July, 2009 but could not dare to come to th e court out of fear to take necessary steps in the suit. On 4.10.2010 when the p laintiffs came to attend the relief fund distributions meeting alongwith their c o-villagers by the district administration, Udalguri to receive the ex-gratia re lief grant ; on that day they could come to know about the dismissal of the sui t on 22.1.09 for default. It is further stated that had not the communal rioting been taken place the plaintiffs would not have been prevented by sufficient cau se from attending the court regularly. The aforesaid averments have made in para graphs 3 to 7 of the petition by the defendants/plaintiffs had not denied those statements in the aforesaid paragraphs. What I find from the statements made in the petition for revival of the suit filed by the plaintiffs that there arose an extraordinary situation in the area where the plaintiffs are living. There was communal rioting in the area on 14.8.08 and it turn into its aggravated form w.e.f. 3.10.08 and the plaintiffs c ame to know about the dismissal of the suit for default on 22.1.2009. The court also took judicial notice about the aforesaid situation in the area under the Ud alguri district of Assam during that period in which the plaintiffs have lost th eir homesteads and their houses were set on fire and they had to leave their vil lage and were kept in relief camps. While passing the impugned order the learned Munsiff took considerati on of those undisputed facts although the learned Munsiff has not expressed vivi dly to that effect but from the impugned order the indication of situation can b e noticed. Upon such consideration and in view of the extraordinary situation th e learned Munsiff deviating from the procedure of filing separate application fo r condoning the delay in filing the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has passed the impugned order and revived the suit setting the order of dismissal o f the suit for default. In view of the aforesaid extraordinary facts situation, the learned Mun siff exercised the jurisdiction for advancement of substantial justice between t he parties on the basis of undisputed facts situation and restore the suit to fi le setting aside the order of dismissal for default. The decision referred to by Mr. Medhi are clearly distinguishable on facts. In all the cases cited above th ere was such an extraordinary situation and there is no dispute on the principle of law as reiterated/enunciated by the Apex Court to that effect, but on the fa cts of the present case the same are not applicable. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned o rder of revival of the suit setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default passed by the learned Munsiff. The learned Munsiff has committed no jur isdictional error in passing the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order has not occasioned any failure of justice, justifying its interference with the revisional jurisdictional of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. In view of the above discussions, this revision petition stands rejected . The interim order dated 26.5.2010 extended subsequently stands vacated.