IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1816 of 2006 ARVIND KUMAR YADAV @ ARVIND KUMAR, SON OF MAHESHWARI PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF TINTANGA, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA VIDYAPURI, Ward no.9, MADHEPURA, P.S. AND DISTRICT MADHEPURA.. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Versus 1. SINGHESHWAR YADAV, SON OF LATE PASHUPATI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.9 MADHEPURA, P.S. AND DISTRICT MADHEPURA………….. PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTY 2. BABULAL JHA, SON OF BANAY JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALTUP, P.S. SUPAUL, DISTRICT SUPAUL 3. GOPAL JHA 4. NANDAN JHA 5. KRISHNA KUMAR JHA 6. AMRENDRA KUMAR JHA, ALL SONS OF LATE KUSHESHWAR JHA 7. SMT. KALYANI DEVI 8. SMT. ANNAPURNA DEVI, BOTH DAUGHTERS OF LATE KUSHESHWAR JHA, ALL RESIDENTS OF AMARPUR, P.S. BIHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR AT PRESENT RESIDENTS OF URDU BAZAR, BHAGALPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT BHAGALPUR………………………… PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 02.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the learned Munsif, Madhepura in Misc. Case No.1/1993 / 34/1997 by which the learned Munsif has allowed the miscellaneous case of the plaintiff and restored the suit dismissed for default by order dated 15.1.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed in terms of Order 9 Rule 2 of the - 2 - Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff ought to have filed a petition for restoration under Order 9 Rule 4. Instead of that, the plaintiff has filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code which is not applicable in a case. After going through the said provisions, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right. However, after going through the impugned order and the order dated 15.1.1993, a certified copy of which has been produced by the petitioner, it appears that the learned trial court has restored the suit in the ends of justice, considering the fact that on 15.1.1993 itself, after dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had filed a petition in the late hours for recall of the order. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter and set aside the impugned order on technical point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, this application is dismissed. B.T. (J.N.Singh, J.)