cra114.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2011. Masood s/o Ahmed Mohd. Hanif and others. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS Nisar Ahmed Abdul Rahman and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Sudhir I. Nandode, Advocate for Petitioners. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. DATE : 10.06.2011. PER COURT: 1. The civil revision application has been filed challenging the order dated 25th January, 2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dhule below Exh.1 in Misc. Civil Application No.104 of 2007. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the cra114.11 2 execution proceedings, which were dismissed in default, could not have been restored by the Court below merely on the bare words of the respondent No.1 that he is an old aged person of 69 years. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there is no reason assigned in the impugned order by which the execution proceedings are restored. The learned Counsel further submits that the execution proceedings were dismissed by the executing Court by order dated 15.6.2007 and the application for restoration of the same came to be filed on 15.7.2007. Therefore, there should have been application for condonation of delay. He, therefore, submits that the revision application may be entertained. 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Court below has accepted the case of the respondent no.1 that he is an old aged person of 69 years and on the date on which cra114.11 3 the proceedings were fixed for hearing, he could not attend the same and, therefore, the proceedings are restored to its original file. The Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner when confronted with a query as to under which provision the Court below exercised its power, he concedes that the Court below exercised powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. In my opinion, once the Court below has exercised powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same court has power to restore the execution proceedings which were dismissed for default. That apart, since the Court below has exercised inherent powers, there was no question of filing any application for condonation of delay. The respondent No.1 was not benefited, in any manner, by not remaining present before the Court on the date on which the matter was fixed for hearing and there was no any cra114.11 4 malafide intention attributed for his non presence. 5. In my opinion, no case is made out by the revision petitioner for interference in the impugned order. The matter is devoid of merits. No jurisdictional error has been brought to the notice of this Court. Hence, revision application is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*