JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 8.12.1982 passed by the Senior Sub Judge Hoshiarpur who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are Melo Rani filed money suit for recovery of Rs. 9,000/- against Dalip Singh and another. The suit was listed for hearing on 14.11.1981. Neither the plaintiff nor her counsel appeared on that day. However, the defendant gave appearance as a result of which the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. on 27.11.1981. That application was also dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. on 8.6.1982. Yet another application was moved for the restoration of the suit on 19.7.1982. That application was again dismissed on merits on 8.12.1982.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. It is a proved fact that on 14.11.1981 suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. She filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. on 27.11.1981 within limitation. She did not prosecute her petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. as a result of that it was dismissed on 8.6.1982. The present application for restoration of the application dated 27.11.1981 was filed on 19.7.1982 i.e. beyond 30 days from 8.6.1982. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no limitation for filing application for the restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. which was dismissed in default. He submitted that the period of three years is permissible to the applicant for making an application under Article 137 of he limitation Act. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. Thirty days limitation was permissible to the applicant and those thirty days expired on 19.7.1982. The Courts were on vacation, in these circumstances, the application could be moved on the first date when the courts opened i.e. 16.7.1982. The present application has been moved on 19.7.1982 which was beyond limitation.
5. Even otherwise on merits, the petitioner has not been able to show that she was prevented from any sufficient cause when she did not appear in the suit on 14.11.1981. The petitioner has taken the excuse of illness. However, there is no satisfactory evidence regarding illness of the petitioner that she was prevented or confined to bed and could not appear before the Trial Court on 14.11.1981. The petitioner is placing reliance upon the medical certificate. Unfortunately Dr. Gian Chand who issued this certificate, has not appeared in the witness box nor he has been examined by the petitioner. So much so, even the petitioner herself has not come in the witness box that she was confined to bed and for that reason she could not appear in the Trial Court on 14.11.1981 or 8.6.1982. In these circumstances, learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality when it dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order. There is no merit in this revision petition and dismiss thesame.