1. It seems to me that the applications of 24th Jane 1911 and 24th June 1914 were never really dismissed but were merely removed from the file for what have frequently been referred to as statistical purposes. I take this view, because the endorsements on them indicate that they were disposed of without notice or hearing and in the course of office routine. The principle to be applied is then that enunciated in Chulavadi Kotiah v. Poloori Alinelammah 31 M.P 71 : 18 M.L.J. 46 : 3 M.L.T. 329 and in Subba Chariar v. Muthuveeram Pillai 14 lad. Cas. 264 : 36 M.P 553 : 24 M.L.J. 545 from which I regard Singaravelu Pillai v. Santhana Krishna Mudaliar 31 Ind. Cas. 9 : (1915) M.W.N. 613 as a departure, and the consequence is that these applications are still pending and must be disposed of. The lower Appellate Court's order is, therefore, set aside and that of the District Munsif restored. The petition is remanded to the latter for further proceedings. Costs to date will follow the event and be provided for in the order to be passed.
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
2. I agree. I only wish to say a word about Singaravelu Pillai v. Santhana Krishni Muialiar 31 Ind. Cas. 9 : (1915) M.W.N. 613 which was relied on by the learned Vakil for the respondents. The principle enunciated in Chalavadi Kotiah v. Poloori Alimelammah 31 M.P 71 : 18 M.L.J. 46 : 3 M.L.T. 329 and confirmed in Subbi Chariar v. Muthuvesram, Pillai 14 lad. Cas. 264 : 36 M.p 553 : 24 M.L.J. 545 is that a disposal for statistical purposes is not a judicial termination of an application. That has been the accepted view in this Court except with reference to disposals to which the amendment in Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure applies. That being the true position in law, there can be no fresh application to revive the original application. The Court has to be appraised in some recognised manner that the application is still pending and steps should be taken either to bring it to fruition or to terminate it legally. This procedure of asking the Court to deal with the application is not one to which either Article 181 or 182 of the Limitation Act has application. I must say, with great respect to the learned Judges who decided Singaravelu Pillai v. Santhana Krishna Mudaliar 31 Ind. Cas. 9 : (1915) M.W.N. 613, that the expression in the judgment that the application has to be revived is not reconcilable with the view that it is pending.
3. I agree in the order proposed by my learned brother.