Sharma, J.—This is an application by the defendant to revise the order of the Munsif at Jhunjhunu for striking out their defence. The facts are that sometime before the 1st May, 1951 the defendant Shubh Karan was asked to copy out the Bundi which is the basis of the suit. The defendant Shubh Karan was summoned on the 1st May, 1951 for making out another copy of the document as there was some difference about the manner in which the copy was made. On the 1st May, 1951 Shubh Karan was present with his counsel but there was some difference between the parties as to the manner in which the copy was to be made. The court decided the case on the 3rd May, 1951 without making any order that the defendant Shubh Karan should be present on the 3rd May, 1951. On the 3rd May, 1951 Shubh Karan was not present and his counsel was not prepared to take the responsibility of producing him on the next date. The court therefore,made an order to the plaintiff to file process fee within three days to summon Shubh Karan. Shubh Karan was summoned as a witness for the plaintiff for the 24th May, 1951. On that date Shubh Karan did not appear in court and the learned Munsif made an error striking out the defence. Against this order the defendant has come in revision to this court. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that there was no power in the lower court to strike out the defence when Shubh Karan did not appear on the summons of the plaintiff as a witness. The order of the lower court was therefore, without jurisdiction or at least it committed illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It was also argued that even if the lower court had a mind to strike out the defence as a consequence of nonappearance of Shubh Karan on the 24th May, 1951 he ought not to have made an order without giving Shubh Karan an opportunity to show cause.

2. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued by Mr. Dutt that the order of the lower court was made under the inherent powers given by sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rulings reported in Shea Partap Singh vs. Ghirro Singh (A.I.R. 1928 Oudh page 262), Venkatahrylu vs. Manchala Yesob and another (Dusari) (A.I.R. 1932 Mad. p. 263) and East Indian Co. vs. Jit Mal Kaloo Mal (A.I.R. 1926 Allahabad p. 280) have been relied upon. The learned counsel was not able to show any specific provision in Civil Procedure Code apart from sec. 151 to justify the action of the lower court. Even the rulings which has been cited do not apply to the facts of the present case. In A. I. R. 1928 Oudh page 262 the defendant was ordered to appear before the trial court and the court made attempts from time to time to persuade the defendant to attend the court, bat he persistently failed to comply with the order and under these circumstances, the court exercising its power under sec. 151 struck out the defence. In A. I. R. 1932 Madras page 263 the defendant was ordered to furnish security and the court ordered him to pay the Batta for the issue of process to the court amin who was to look into the adequacy of the bond. The defendant did not deposit the amount in the court although he was warned that on failure to do so his defence would be struck out. The defendant failing to make the deposit the defence was struck out. In A. I. R. Allahabad page 280 payment of costs was made a condition precedent of adjournment granted to the defendant, but the defendant could not deposit the costs and the defence was consequently struck out and the case proceeded ex parte. It would appear that in all these cases as the defendant was ordered to do a certain thing which he failed to do, the courts might have been justified in these cases in striking out the defence under the inherent powers given by sec. 151 In the present case, Shubh Karan was not ordered to appear in his capacity as a defendant but he was summoned as a witness for the plaintiff. If he did not appear the court could have taken actio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document