IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1601 of 2006 SMT.SHAKUNTALA DEVI Versus RAJU PRASAD & ANR ----------- 2 12.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner to the extent as against the impugned order restoring the suit without issuance of notice and/or opportunity of hearing, seems to be correct and justified but then it is his own making. The suit was dismissed for default by order dated 7.1.2006 and on that day neither the defendant- petitioner nor the plaintiffs-opposite parties were present. Obviously, such dismissal was under Order IX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, if the plaintiffs- opposite parties had filed their application giving sufficient explanation for their non-appearance and had further satisfied the court below by leading two witnesses on the point, there was no necessity for the petitioner to be either noticed or heard. There has been conscious omission of an opportunity of hearing in similar cases and in this context from a bare comparison of the provisions of Order IX Rule 3, 4 and 8 in conjunction with Order IX Rule 9, it would be found that in a situation like this where neither the parties had appeared and suit is - 2 - dismissed for default, there would be no necessity for giving either notice and/or opportunity of hearing for restoration of the suit. That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)