Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Secs. 151 & Order 9, Rule 9–Order of restoration of suit qua certain plaintiffs–Sustainability–Opinion of Trial Court that the suit was dismissed through withdrawal without any written authority, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 151 were being involved and the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 were not applicable–Further observation that there is no limitation for invoking the inherent powers u/s. 151 –Out of nine plaintiffs, only two filed the separate applications for restoration–The logical inference is that the withdrawal was undertaken on the collective instructions of the plaintiffs–Present co-plaintiffs are approbating and reprobating as per their convenience–Applicants made no attempt for over two years to contact their counsel–Such reflects gross negligence and absence of bona fide conduct on their part–Impugned order is self-contradictory regarding the time line–Further, the provisions of Art. 122 applies in the instant case, and the restoration application was clearly barred by the limitation–It appears that after withdrawal of suit, some inter se dispute arose among the co-plaintifs and they sought to undo what had already been mutually accepted and finalized–Impugned order is liable to be set aside–Suit is disposed of in terms of judgment and decree passed earlier.
