Bapna, J.—This is a revision against an order of the learned District Judge of Sikar. dated 11th July, 1951.

2. The petitioner was a defendant in a suit for recovery of Rs. 491. It was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned Civil Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, on 19th March, 1952. The defendant filed an appeal, and on the date of hearing his counsel wanted an adjournment. This was refused as being based on not sufficient grounds and his counsel was asked to address arguments. He did not do so, and the learned Judge went through the record and came to the conclusion that the findings of fact arrived at by the lower court were correct, and the appeal was dismissed on merits by judgment of 11th July, 1952. The defendant filed a second appeal, but as the valuation of the suit was less than Rs. 500/- the memorandum of appeal was treated as revision.

3. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that as soon as counsel expressed his inability to argue the case, it was as good as nonappearance of the defendant, and the appeal should have been dismissed for default, in which case the defendant would have a remedy for restoration of the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document