JUDGMENT - P.M. MUKHI, J.:---This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant, Shankar Sadu Wanjhe, against the order and judgment of the District Judge remanding the matter back to the trial Court, for a proper hearing after oral and documentary evidence is taken on record.

The matter arises in this way. The respondent, Smt. Parwatibai Ramchandra Dongre, who is the original plaintiff, filed a suit for possession of the eastern portion of the house situate at Dhangavadi, Taluka Bhor, and also for damages at Rs. 755/-.

The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhor and it would appear that the defendant had engaged two layers, one from Poona and the other one from the local Bar. However, in the events that happened the Advocate from Poona Shri Dube could not be present at the time of the hearing and the local Advocates Shri Gupte withdrew his appearance at the time of the hearing. The result was that the defendant was left without the aid of an Advocate. The learned Civil Judge refused to grant to the defendant even a short adjournment and proceeded with the trial, with the result that in substance the defendant was unable to place his case before the Court. The trial Court nevertheless proceeded with the matter and decreed the suit against the defendant.

The defendant filed an appeal which is Civil Appeal No. 591 of 1973 in the Court of the District Judge at Poona. It was a argued before the learned District Judge that although the defendant had engaged two layers i.e. Shri Dube from Poona and Shri Gupte from Bhor, in the events that happened he was left without legal representative. Thus, when the defendant entered the witness box he had no advantage of the skill and advice of a lawyer. He could not, therefore, conduct his defence properly or cross-examine the plaintiffs witness.

In these circumstances it was argued before the District Court that the trial was vitiated as no reasonable opportunity was allowed to the defendant to be represented by a lawyer and also to lead necessary evidence on his behalf.

The learned District Judge very properly came to the conclusion that the defendant had without any fault on his part, been placed in an invidious position. This is what he observed: "The advantage of the lawyerss services is of much importance to a litigant. In the present case the defendant was not at fault and I feel that the lower Court should have granted a short adjournment."

It is significant that the learned District Judge then went on to the notice the conduct of the defendant and found that the defendants conduct was "eloquent" in the sense that he had exercised due diligence and although he had been let down by his Advocates, he immediately applied to the Court on the 25th of July, 1974, that is only two days after the date on which the trial was held, with a request that the defendant should be allowed to lead evidence and that he should be allowed to produce certain documents which he had brought with himself. The learned District Judge has observed as follows :---

"...Here is a case where the defendant who had initially no advantage of lawyers services approached the Court before the decision of the suit with a request that he may be allowed to lead evidence. It was rightly urged by Shri Dube that this diligent conduct of the defendant should have been properly construed by the Court by granting the necessary permission for leading evidence. I think that all these circumstance put together would indicate that there was prejudice to the defendant and it is in the interest of justice that the suit should be remanded."

It is substantially clear that the learned District Judge, after noticing the facts, came to correct conclusion that at the trial the defendant had been prejudiced and it must follow that thereby the trial was vitiated. That is why the learned District Judge came to a clear finding that in the interests of justice it was necessary to remand the suit to the trial Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document