1. This is an application by one who was the defendant in the suit in the Court below complaining against a Munsif's order dated 12th August 1927. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed for default on 25th June 1927. On 18th July 1927, he applied for the restoration of his suit. This application came up for hearing on 27th August 1927. On that date too, the plaintiff was absent, with the result that his application which was one for restoration of his suit was dismissed. Then he made a fresh application on 29th August 1927, for the purpose of his application dated 18th July 1927, being restored. The learned Munsif found, as a fact, that the plaintiff had sufficient cause for his absence on 27th August 1927. He therefore restored the application dated 18th July 1927, and proposed to investigate it. The defendant has come up in this Court and his contention is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to restore the application of 18th July 1927. The authority which partially supports the applicant's case is to be found in Pitambar Lal v. Dodee Singh A.I.R. 1924All. 503. There being no counsel appearing for the respondent the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the case in Ganesh Prasad v. Bhagelu Ram : AIR1925All773 . The latter case which considered the earlier case in Pitambar Lal v. Dodee Singh A.I.R. 1924All. 503 laid down that even if Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C. had no application there was no bar to the application of Section 151, Civil P.C. We agree with this view, with the result that the application fails. The application is dismissed but without costs because the respondent is unrepresented.