The learned Assistant Judge considered that the petitioning creditor sues on behalf of the general body of creditors and, therefore, in a sense every creditor is a party to the proceedings and that under Order IX, Rule 9, any party to the proceeding can ask for a petition dismissed for default being restored to file. But Order IX, Rule 9, refers specifically to the plaintiff who has to satisfy the Court that he has sufficient cause for non-appearance, and it is doubtful whether it was competent to the shop of Laxminarayan Sitaram to apply under Order IX, Rule 9, for a revival of the petition.
7. But the question still remains whether the Court did not have inherent jurisdiction to restore the application to file at the instance of one of the creditors. Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code the Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In my opinion the ends of justice do require in the peculiar circumstances of this case that the application should be restored to file, and that, therefore, the two lower Courts were right in passing the order that they did.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Civil Revision Application No. 87 of 1944
Decided On: 17.11.1944
Keshav Appa Bhagat Vs. Sitaram Hanumandas
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.S. Rajadhyaksha, J.
Citation:1944 SCCONLINE 79: AIR 1946 Bom 20:MANU/MH/0133/1944
