ORDER
Mirdhe, J
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in the trial Court against the order dated 5-9-1994 passed by the Small Causes Judge and Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S.No. 27 of 1993 allowing I.A.II filed by the respondent under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the records of the case.
3. The respondent – Bank has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,72,241/-. When the suit was posted for evidence, the respondent remained absent and therefore the suit came to be dismissed for default. On that very day, a representative of the respondent-Bank appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has allowed that application. The only grievance of the petitioners is that there is a specific provision in CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default and the respondent instead of resorting to that specific provision of law, has filed an application under Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent powers of the Court to set aside that order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a Decision in the case of B. GANGANNA v. RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS. ILR (Karnataka) 1981(2) 1543, wherein this Court has held that if a suit is dismissed for default or non-prosecution, the aggrieved party may apply for setting aside of order of dismissal under Order 9 Rule 9 and that when there is a specific provision, the plaintiff cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court. The question is whether this Court should exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 CPC to set aside such an order.
In H.S. SIDDAPPA v. LAKSHMAMMA AND ANR. AIR 1965 Mysore 313, this Court has held as follows:
“It is well established that the High Court is not bound to interfere under Section 115 CPC except in aid of justice. Thus, where the order of subordinate Court, has brought about a just result and where the setting aside of that order would bring about an unjust result, the High Court would not exercise its discretion under Section 115 CPC and interfere with such order, even though the order suffers from illegality or irregularity.”
Section 115 CPC also lays down as follows:
“The High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where –
(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other. proceedings, or
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
Explanation:- In this section the expression any case which has been decided includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.”
4. In this case, no doubt that the Court has exercised its powers under Section 151 CPC in spite of the fact that there is a provision in CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default. But the facts disclose that the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC on the very day when the suit came to be dismissed for default. I do not think any injustice would be caused if such an order is allowed to stand. It cannot be interfered with merely on technical ground that the application filed was under Section 151 CPC arid not under the proper provision of law. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in exercising its powers under Section 115 CPC to set aside such an order which has advanced the cause of Justice and not thwarted it. Hence, C.R.P. is not admitted. Dismissed.