1. The petitioner was the defendant in the court below, and, at one stage, he was held to he not an agriculturist, as defined by the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act- It was the plaintiff who alleged that he was an agriculturist, and this allegation he made, for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the larger period of limitation, prescribed by Section 24 of the Act.
From that finding of the Court below, the plaintiff presented a revision petition to this Court, and this Court set aside the finding of the Court below and remanded the matter to it for disposal according to law, and for the determination of the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, by the application of the amended definition, of an agriculturist contained in the Act, after its amendment by Mysore Act No. XIII of 1953. The direction given by this Court in that revision petition reads:
'The finding is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for disposal according to law.'
Meanwhile, the plaintiff's suit had been dismissed by the Court below on the basis of its finding that the defendant was not an agriculturist.
2. When the matter went back to the Court below, the defendant urged that it was no longer possible for the Court below to make an adjudication on the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, since the suit in which that adjudication could have been made had itself come to an end by its dismissal during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court.
3. That contention was negatived and the Court below held that by reason of the order made by this Court in the revision petition, the suit must be deemed to have been revived.
4. In this revision petition, Mr. Gundappa, appearing on behalf of the defendant, assails the correctness of that view. He urged that since this Court, in the earlier revision petition, did not set aside the decree dismissing the plaintiffs suit, that dismissal became final and conclusive rendering it impossible for the Court below to decide the preliminary issue which was remanded to it for disposal.
5. I do not agree that that is the correct position. The dismissal of the plaintiffs suit rested on the finding recorded by the Court below that the defendant was not an agriculturist. If that finding was set aside by this Court in the earlier revision petition, with the reversal of that finding, which was foundational to the dismissal, the dismissal must also be deemed to have been set aside.
6. If a suit is brought by a plaintiff, on the footing that the defendant is an agriculturist, claiming the larger period of limitation prescribed by Section 24 of the Act, and the Court records a finding that the defendant is not an agriculturist, and therefore, dismisses the suit, if the finding on which the dismissal o the suit rested is vacated by this Court, the dismissal, the moment the finding is so vacated, falls with it.
7. That being so, the Court below was right in its conclusion that when this Court reversed its earlier finding, the suit immediately got revived.
8. There is another reason why I should come to the conclusion that this revision petition cannot succeed. The order of this Court was that the Court below should now proceed to decide afresh the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist, and this order has now to be given effect to by the Court below. If, before the decision in the revision petition, in which the aforesaid order was made, the Court below has dismissed the suit, that dismissal cannot properly constitute an impediment in the enforcement of the order of this Court.
The implication of the order of this Court was that if the suit had in the meanwhile come to an end, on the basis of the finding which Was reversed in the revision Petition, that suit must be restored to the file of the Court below and disposed of as directed by the order.
9. Even otherwise, this is a case in which it would be permissible for me, in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction, to now set aside the order of the Court below dismissing the plaintiffs Suit That, I can do under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, although it might not be possible for me to do so at this stage under the provisions of Section 4 of the Agriculturists Relief Act.
If it had been possible for me to hold that the order made by this Court in the revision petition did not revive the suit which had been, in the meanwhile, dismissed, I would have set aside fee order of dismissal, in the exercise of such revisional jurisdiction. But, since I am of the view that the suit got revived and must be deemed to have been directed to be restored to the file of the Court below, when this Court made its order, it would not be necessary for me to do so.
10. This revision petition fails and is dismissedwith costs.
11. Revision petition dismissed.