IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.396 of 2004 SHIV PRASAD SAH Versus SMT.GAYATRI DEVI & ORS ----------- 20 8.5.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. This Court, having perused the scope of the impugned order dated 8.12.2003 and also found that the civil revision application is barred by limitation, would not exercise its discretionary power of entertaining this civil revision application because in terms of the amended provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the impugned order would not even fall within the confined revisional jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, a money suit of the year 1993 has been sought to be restored by the impugned order which got earlier dismissed for default on 6.8.2002 in terms of Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below, however, had exercised its power under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and had restored the suit after being satisfied with the sufficient cause mentioned in miscellaneous application filed by the opposite parties. This Court would therefore 2 again not question such exercise of discretionary power of the court below. The submission of learned counsel that no notice was given to the petitioner could have been earlier raised by the petitioner before the court below itself by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or at least asking that very court to extend an opportunity of hearing but then that having been not done and this civil revision application having been kept pending for a period of six years, this Court is now not in a position to interfere with the impugned order, which would only cause injustice to the opposite party by denying them an opportunity of hearing of their appeal on merits. That being so, both on the question of limitation as also on the question of merits, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the impugned order and in that view of the matter the present Civil Revision Application being devoid of any merit, must be and is hereby dismissed. 3 Before parting with, this Court, would, however direct the court below to ensure that the money suit itself being of the year 1993 is disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and for this purpose if so required the court below may take recourse of day-to-day hearing of the suit. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)