The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower Court's actions resulted in a failure of justice, and the provisions of C.P.C. were interpreted to emphasize the defendant's right to lead evidence and the consequences of the defendant's absence.

1. Shri Surya Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant did not press on application M.(C).P. No. 2231/2006 for grant of stay of execution which is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

2. Both the learned counsel pray that this appeal be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

3. Heard finally.

4. Brief facts are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,94,400/- against the appellant/defendant on the basis of a promissory note dated 19.8.2000 executed by the appellant/defendant acknowledging the receipt of loan of Rs.81 ,000/- and also promising to pay interest@4%permonth thereon.

5. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit and denied that any promissory note was executed by her or that any loan was advanced to her by the respondent/ plaintiff.

6. The evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was closed on 8.11.2004. On 24.11.2004, 17.12.2004 and 17.01.2005, though the suit was fixed for recording the evidence of the appellant/defendant she did not keep her witnesses present. On 17.1.2005 i.e. the date for evidence an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was moved by the appellant/defendant alleging that she had learnt that the respondent/plaintiff who was an agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and on whose motivation the appellant/defendant had opened an Account in L.I.C. and taken a policy on 9.9.2002, had during the course of opening of account, forged the promissory note dated 19.8.2000.

7. Upon such an application being filed on 17.1.2005, the First Additional District Judge adjourned the suit to 15.2.2005 for hearing on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. On 15.2.2005, the appellant/defendant and her counsel remained absent. The learned lower Court closed the appellant/defendant's case and instead of proceeding to pronounce judgment again adjourned the suit to 21.2.2005. On 18.2.2005. the appellant/defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. for being heard in answer to the suit while showing good cause for non-appearance on 15.2.2005. The lower Court rejected both the applications i.e. application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. as also the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.PC vide order dated 10.03.2005 and delivered the impugned judgment and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.81,000/- along with interest @) 6%perannum from 19.8.2000 till payment in favour of respondent/ plaintiff.

8. Shri Surya Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. as also the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. by the lower Court was contrary to law and has occasioned failure of justice. It was urged that upon an application being filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the suit was adjourned for reply on the said application. Therefore, the lower Court erred in closing the evidence of the appellant/defendant on 15.2.2005. It was also urged that the order dated 10.3.2005, rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. was contrary to law since the lower Court instead of taking a pragmatic and liberal view rejected the application on a highly technical ground. On these premises, it was urged that while allowing the appeal and the applications under Order 9 Rule 7 and Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. the matter should be remanded to the lower Court for giving an Opportunity to the appellant/defendant to adduce evidence. On the other hand, Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued in support of impugned judgment and decree.

9. Having heard rival contentions, I have perused the record of Civil Suit No.01-B/2005. It is pertinent to note that on 17.1.2005 fixed for recording evidence of the appellant/defendant, upon ting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.PC. by the appellant/defendant, the suit was adjourned to 15.2.2005 for reply on the said application. Instead of deciding the application under Order 6 rule 17 of C.PC. on 15.2.2005 an