RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order setting aside the decree in O. S. No. 172 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. treating the decree as one passed under Order 17, Rule 2 C P. C. The plaintiff is the petitioner. One of the objections raised by the petitioner in the lower Court was that the decree passed by the lower Court is one which comes under Order 17, Rule 3 C. P. C. and not under Order 17, Rule 2, C. P. C. and therefore the proper course for the defendant-respondent would have been to file a regular appeal to set aside the decree passed in the suit. The lower Court did not agree with that contention relying on a bench decision of this Court reported in Suryarao v. Peddayya, AIR 1967 Andh Pra 152.

( 2 ) WHAT happened in the present case is that when the suit came up for trial on 12-7-1972 the defendants counsel asked for an adjournment and it was refused. Thereafter the defendants counsel did not participate in the hearing of the suit though he actually did not report no instructions. After refusing the adjournment, the Court took evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and after clos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document