Modi, J.—This is a revision by the defendants Sohanlal and Labchand against an order of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, restoring on payment of certain costs a suit which had been dismissed for default of the plaintiffs appearance.

2. It is unnecessary to set forth the pleadings of the parties for the purposes of this revision. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff opposite party brought a suit against the defendants petitioners, among other reliefs, for specific performance of an alleged oral contract of sale with respect to a portion of a house which was alleged to be ancestral property but part of which had fallen to the share of certain co-sharers therein and the latter had sold the same to the defendants. The suit was instituted on the 31st May, 1951, issues were framed on the 17th April, 1952, and the case was pasted for the plaintiffs evidence for the 24th May, 1952, On that date by mutual consent between counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned to the 6th August, 1952, and owing to an intermediate application filed by the plaintiffs counsel, the case was adjourned to the 16th August, 1952. Meanwhile the plaintiff had filed a list of witnesses to be summoned through court. Some of the plaintiffs witnesses were absent in spite of service on the 16th August, 1952, and so fresh summonses were directed to be issued against them and the case was adjourned to the 8th September, 1952. On the 8th September, 1952, some of the plaintiffs witnesses, namely, Mohanlal and Baijnath were present but counsel for both parties went away to attend to some case in the Sub-Divisional Magistrates court, and the court ordered that all the plaintiffs witnesses (and we are informed that they were forty-seven in number) be summoned together and the case fixed from the 12th to 14th November, 1952, both days inclusive. It however, transpired or, the 12th November that the Civil Judge was otherwise preoccupied and so the case was adjourned to the 16th December, 1952, and the witnesses who were present were directed to appear on the next date. The Civil Judge happened to be on leave on the 16th December, 1952, and so the case was adjourned and about half a dozen witnesses Who were present were directed to be present on the next which was the 10th February 1953. On the last-mentioned date, certain witnesses were again present but the order-sheet shows that counsel for the plaintiff suggested that he would like to have all the witnesses examined together and so the case was again adjourned to the 26th March, 1953, and summonses were directed to be issued to all the witnesses who were not present on that date. We cannot help pointing out at this stage that this was an amazing state of affairs and displays a deplorable mismanagement of the case in the court below. Witnesses who were present a number of times were sent away everytime on some excuse or another and we are altogether unable to understand why witnesses who were present on a date of hearing were not examined but were sent away without being examined and how the learned trial Judge or learned counsel for the plaintiff could think with any reason that forty-seven witnesses could be examined on one day.

3. Be that as it may, on the next date, which was the 26th March, 1953, the plaintiffs counsel was absent and so was the plaintiff. It may be pointed out at this place that from the record of the proceedings it appears that the parties (on either side) were never present in court and they were content to leave the case in the hands of counsel and it was the counsel on both side who appear to have been put in almost entire charge of the case. It further appears that the order passed at the last hearing for summoning the plaintiffs witnesses was not carried out with the result that no witness of the plaintiff is said to have been present on the 26th March. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs suit under O. XVII, r. 2 read with O. IX r. 8 C.P.C.

4. On the 7th April, 1953, an application f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document