Sulaiman, J.:— This is a defendant's application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The suit had been adjourned on several occasions on account of the non-payment of process fee by the plaintiff. On the 7th of December, 1927, the court dismissed the suit for the plaintiff's default of the payment of the process fee. The expression used by the learned Judge was “thrown out for plaintiff's default.” On the 13th of February, 1928, the plaintiff applied under order IX, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure for the setting aside of the dismissal. The report of the office also indicated that the suit had been dismissed on account of the non-payment of the process fee. On the 24th of February, 1928, the suit was restored to its original number on the file and on that date the process fee was paid by the plaintiff. Although the language used by the Judge of Small Cause Court was not explicit, there is no doubt that the suit was dismissed on account of the non-payment of the process fee. The plaintiff himself treated the dismissal as such, because he applied under order IX, rule 4. The application for restitution of the case was filed more than 30 days after the date of the dismissal, and was beyond time under article 163 of the Limitation Act.
The only point that remains for consideration is whether the time could be extended by the court under section 5 of the Limitation Act. That section does not apply to all applications, but only to those that are expressly provided for therein. It applies to an application for a review of judgement or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force. The application in question was made under order IX, rule 4, and there is no express provision in that order which makes section 5 applicable to such applications, as for instance is to be found in order XXII, rule 9, sub-clause (3).
I must, therefore, hold that the court had no jurisdiction to extend the period of 30 days which had expired A somewhat similar view has been expressed by the Rangoon High Court in Ma Naw Naw v. Somasundram Chetty (1), with regard to applications under order IX, rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure which are governed by article 164.
I accordingly allow this revision and setting aside the decree of the court below dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs.