( 1 ) THE respondent in these two appeals filed O. S. No. 78/70 and O. S. No. 88/70 on the file of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The earlier suit is one for the recovery of Rs. 21,065 said to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The second is a suit for the recovery of rs. 7,565 partly towards arrears of rent and partly towards mesne profits and for the recovery of possession of the property. These two cases were being posted together as the parties in both the cases are the same. The cases came up for hearing after series of adjournments on 2-4-1970. On 2 1-1970, the order sheet in O. S. No. 78/70 reads as follows:"defendant's Counsel prays for adjournment. Plaintiff's Counsel opposes. Defendant's Counsel says, he has to obtain certain copies and is not ready to get on with evidence. Adjourned as a final chance on 14-4-1970 on costs of Rs. 15-00. "in O. S. No. 88/70, the order sheet reads as follows:"p. W. 1 examined. Exts. P-1, P-2 marked. Cross-examination to begin on 14-4-1970. Counsel for the defendant says that he has to obtain some certified copies. Defendant's Counsel informed that on no account further adjournment will be granted in this case and both side should close on next date. "

( 2 ) ON 14-4-1970, the order sheet in O. S. 78 of 1970 records:"cost not paid. Defendant in person says that hie Advocate is not in station and prays for adjournment. Plaintiff's Counsel seriously opposed adjournment as the case was adjourned as a final chance and even costs are not paid. The adjournment is refused. The defendant is not willing to give evidence in the absence of his Counsel. Hence defendant side is closed. At this stage, the defendant said that he would fetch another Lawyer and promised to return within 15 minutes, though he went at 11-50 a. m. he has not returned till 12-30 p. m. Thereafter P. W. 1 examined and Exts. P-l and P-2 marked. Plaintiff's side closed. Heard plaintiff's Counsel. "the judgment was pronounced on the same day decreeing the plaintiff's suit as prayed for with costs. In the later suit, the order sheet of 14-4-1970 records as follows:"defendant in person. Says he cannot cross-examine the plaintiff as his Advocate is out of station. Plaintiff's Counsel very seriously opposes the adjournment. As the case was adjourned as final chance further adjournment is refused. Plaintiff's side is closed. Defendant says he cannot lead his evidence as his Advocate is absent. Hence, defendant's side is also closed. Heard plaintiff's Counsel. Judgment 18-4-1970. "on 18-4-70 the judgment was pronounced and the suit was decreed as prayed for with costs and other reliefs.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed two petitions registered as Mis. Nos. 19 and 20/1970 praying that the decree passed on 14-4-70 and 18-4-70 be set aside. He made these applications under Or. 9 R. 13 read with S. 151, CPC. He pleaded that when he was going to fetch his Counsel he met with an accident and there fore he could not attend the Court as he intended to do on 14-4-70. This application was opposed by the respondent denying the allegations made in the petition relating to facts and also raising an objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions. His contention is that the orders passed on 14-4-1970 in O. S. 78/70 and on 18-4-70 in O. S. 88|70 are orders made under the provision of Or. 17, R. 3 CPC. and therefore the applications are not maintainable. The learned Civil Judge has taken the view that the decisions made by the Court on 14-4-1970 and 18-4-1970 are judgments coming within the purview of Or. 17, R. 3 CPC. , and therefore holds that the petitions cannot lie and dismissed the petitions.

( 4 ) AGAINST these orders of dismissal, the petitioner defendant has filed the above miscellaneous appeals under the provisions of Or. 43 R. 1. of the CPC.

( 5 ) SRI Kodidal Manjappa, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urges that in view of the fact that the provisions of Or. 17, R. 3 of the CPC. are almost p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document