JUDGMENT - (1) This is an application for revision of the order the City Civil Court granting leave to the petitioner to defend the suit for the recovery of R. 18725/- with costs upon the condition of depositing r. 7500/- (as security). This application was made to this Court on 30-7-1959 and was admitted by Mr. Justice Gokhale on 31-7-1959. After the rule was served on the respondents, Messrs. Rustamji and Jinwala put in an appearance, made an application for expediting the hearing and for fixing a date for the hearing. That application was granted and the matter was directed to be placed for hearing before the Court today. In spite of this no one has appeared before me on behalf of the respondents.

(2) It is no doubt true that the point raised here by Mr. Sakhardande is an important one as it deals with the practice which ought to have been followed by the City Civil Court in matters of this kind and I would have liked to hear the other side. However, as the other side has not chosen to appear before me, I am constrained to proceed in their absence.

(3) The point whihc Mr. Sakhardande raised is this: It is that where a subordinate court makes an order which is open to appeal or re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document