Virupakshi Gowd v. Bandappa

The only question is whether a party can apply for a review of judgment under O. 47, Civil Procedure Code, when his suit has been dismissed for default under O. 9, R. 8 and he does not apply under R. 9 to set aside the order.

There is so far as I can see nothing in O. 47 which prohibits a party from applying for a review in cases where he has another remedy provided for him in the Code.

In Raj Narain Purkait v. Ananga Mohan Bhanod(1), it was held that a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed under Sect. 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure was entitled to apply for review without applying for restoration under Sect. 103. In Lal Chet Narain Sahi v. Rampal Manjhi(2), it was held that a defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed can apply for review without proceeding under O. 9, R. 13, Civil Procedure Code. I have been referred to Deodip Singh… v. Gopal Singh…Opposite Party.(3) where a contrary view was held but with all deference it seems to me that where there is nothing in the Code to limit the parties to one particular mode of procedure, the fact that they can get a longer period of limitation by adoption of a particular course is no ground for refusing relief. Probably in a very large majority of cases a party whose suit has been dismissed for default cannot urge any of the grounds which the law requires for granting a review but there is no reason for holding that an application for review will not lie in cases of dismissal of a suit for default.

I set aside the order of the Lower Court and remand the petition for disposal on the merits. Costs of this Civil Revision Petition do abide and follow the result.

K.V S.Case remanded