1. It appears that on the 15th January 1921 Dan Singh, the opposite party, put in an application trader Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for cancellation of sale in favour of the applicant and recovery, of the property on the allegation that the property did not belong to the judgment-debtor of the applicant. The application of Dan Singh was struck off in default on the 28th May 1921. On the nth June 1921 Dan Singh moved the? Court to restore his application that was struck oft in default. Objections were taken on behalf of Bhikam Khan, the applicant before me. The learned Munsif rejected the objection and restored the application of Dan Singh on the 9th July 1921. The present application for revision is against the order of the learned Munsif restoring the application of Dan Singh which had been struck off in default.
2. In my opinion the applicant must succeed in view of the case law on the subject. I would refer to the latest case on this point of our own Court, namely, that of Bhatat Indu v. Asghar Ali Khan 73 Ind. Cas. 453 : 31 A.L.J. 135 : 45 A. 1481. This is a Division Bench case and I must follow it. I, therefore, allow the application and set aside tie order of the learned Munsif dated the 9th July 1921 restoring the application of Dan Singh.