1. The circumstances out of which this application has arisen are briefly as follows: A suit was instituted within British territory and the jurisdiction of the British Courts over the subject-matter of the suit and the parties thereto was territorial. It was originally in the Court of the Munsif, but was transferred by the District Judge to his Court. He dismissed the suit, as the plaintiff failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing. On the 31st March 1911, the plaintiff applied under Order IX, Rule 9 for restoration of the suit and a re-hearing. Notice was issued and a date fixed. In the meantime on the 1st of April 1911, the territory, within which the parties resided and the cause of action arose, was transferred from the British territory and became part and parcel of a Native State and, therefore, was outside the jurisdiction of the British Court in Mirzapur. When the application came on for hearing, an objection was taken that the British Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit and the parties thereto and, therefore, the application should be dismissed. The District Judge agreed with this contention and held that he had no longer any jurisdiction in the matter and finally ordered the application for restoration to be returned to the applicant for presentation to the proper Court.
2. The plaintiffs came here in revision pleading that the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the application and has, therefore, failed to exercise a jurisdiction which vested in it.
3. A preliminary objection is taken that the order passed by the lower Court is in substance and in effect an order ejecting an application under Order IX, Rule 9, and is, therefore, appealable, vide Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (c) and, therefore, this application for revision should be rejected.
4. For the other side, it is argued that this is not an order rejecting an application for re-hearing but it is a refusal by the Court to hear that application. To my mind this hardly seems to be correct. The application was filed when the Court had jurisdiction. It was entertained and a date was fixed and, whatever may be the language in which the Court passed its order that order in substance and in effect is an order refusing to grant an application under Order IX, Rule 9 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit or the parties thereto. The order may be a bad one, but it is in substance an order under Order IX, Rule 9, and the plaintiff could have appealed. Therefore, in my opinion, this application for revision must be rejected. It is also very doubtful, indeed, whether the applicant 'has any really good ground to grumble at the order of the Court below. Even on the merits, he does not seem to have a good case. The application is rejected with costs.