Beevor, J.The petitioner brought a suit for rent. The substantial question at issue between him and the defendant was whether the total rental was Rs. 135 as alleged by him or Rs. 35-8-3 as alleged by the defendant.

2. On 23rd September 1943 the plaintiff was granted time to produce certain documentary evidence on payment of Rs. 6 as adjournment costs. The payment was made a condition precedent to the hearing of the suit. There were several adjournments, and finally the suit was called for hearing on 25th February 1944 when the order sheet shows that the plaintiff did not pay the costs, and, therefore the suit was decreed according to the rate admitted by the defendant. On 28th February 1944 the petitioner filed an application which headed as under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 151, Civil P.C., for restoration of the suit. This application was rejected on 19th June 1944 on the ground that it was not maintainable, and that the plaintiffs remedy was to file an appeal against the decree dated 25th February 1944. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this Court.

3. Now, I cannot agree with the view which has been expressed by the learned Munsif for dismissing the application by his order dated 19th June 19ii, but it seems to me that this petition should fail on another ground. I am of the opinion that the application dated 28th February 1944 did lie under Order 9, Rule 9, and, therefore, when it was rejected on 19th June 1944 the petitioners remedy was by an appeal to the District Judge.

4. It is urged, however, that Section 151 would apply because it was uncertain which provision of law would apply, and in this connection I was referred to the decision in Adit Prasad Singh Vs. Ramharakh Ahir, . That was a case in which the plaintiff handed over deficit court-fees to his pleader. Had the petitioner handed over the amount payable as adjournment costs to his pleader in the present instance, that case might have been applicable, but this is not the petitioners own case. His own version, according to his petition of 28th February 1944 was that his karpardaz had gone away to the Imperial Bank some 100 yards off and when he returned, the suit had been dismissed.

5. Unfortunately for the petitioner at the critical time when the matter arose, neither he nor his karpardaz were ready to pay the money. The fact that they had been ready on previous occasions is, to my mind, quite irrelevant.

6. There is an affidavit on the record to show that they were ready to pay but there is no affidavit that the money was ever tendered either to the opposite party or to the Court, and, in these circumstances, I see no ground on the merits for re-opening the question which was decided by the order of 25th February 1944.

7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Hearing fee, one gold mohur.