JUDGMENT

1. There are three connected appeals before us today pending between the same parties, namely, Nos. 319 and 183 of 1919 and one other appeal from order which has been admitted by us to-day bat which has not been numbered by the office. This last appeal which we have admitted and No. 186 of 1919 are appeals from orders. The appeal No. 319 of 1919 is a regular first appeal from an ex parte decree.

2. The facts which have given rise to the three appeals are as follows: The parties to the three appeals are the Ramchandra Gur Sahei Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., as plaintiffs, and the Lyalpur Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., through their manager L. Jai Ram Dr, and the Cotton Ginning Factory at Lyalpur through their proprietors L. Mathura Das and Thakur Das as defendants.

3. The plaintiff Company sued for the recovery of Rs. 32,759 8-0 as damages on the allegation that the defendants had promised to supply the plaintiff firm with 320 bales of Lyalpur cotton at Rs. 45 8 0 per maund to be delivered at Lucknow in the months of November and December 1917 and in the month of January 1918. The contract was entered into at Cawnpore on the 14th November 1917. The defendant failed to deliver the goods at the specified time. The plaintiff firm had to go into the market and purchase the bales of cotton that were required, and as in the meantime the price of the biles of cotton had gone up, the plaintiff firm suffered a loss of Rs. 32,759 8 0.

4. The suit out of which these appeals have arisen was instituted in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, on the 12th August 1918, presumably because the contract was entered into at Cawnpore and because Jai Ram Das, defendant No. 1, lives at Cawnpore and carries on his business there. Jai Ram Das purchases sugar from Messrs. Begg Sutherland & Co., Cawnpore, and carries on the business of selling sugar at Lyalpur. Thakur Das and Mathura Das admittedly live at Lyalpur where they have got a Cotton Ginning Factory. The suit was resisted on various grounds. The issues were fixed by the learned Additional Subordinate. Judge on the 23rd October 1918. On the 23rd November 1918 the plaintiff firm made an application purporting to be under Order X, Rule 14. By the said application the plaintiff firm asked the Court to require the defendants to produce into Court certain books and other documents which were detailed in the application. On the 29th November 1918 the learned Subordinate Judge male an order to the effect that notice should be issued. On the 13th January 1919, a notice on the said application was issued and was served upon the Pleader for the defendants. The notice was in the form No. 6 given in Appendix C to the Code of Civil Procedure, As the notice was not complied with, a second application was made on behalf of the plaintiff firm on the 4th April 1919. The Pleader for the defendant No. 1 stated to the Court that the papers called for by the Court will be produced if all or any of them were found in the possession of Jai Ram Das. NO papers seem to have been filed. On the 21th April 1919, a third application was made on behalf of the plaintiff firm to the same effect. A notice was issued which was affixed to the gate of the house of Jai Ram Das as the latter was not found at home. This application also proved infructuous. On the 2nd June 1919 a fourth application was made on behalf of the plaintiff firm to the same effect. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the defendant No. 1 to produce the documents called for within ten days. The order was not complied with. On the 28th July 1919 the plaintiff filed an application purporting to be under Order XI, Rule 15. The learned Subordinate Judge directed that notice should issue. The notice was served upon the Pleader for defendant No. 1 on the 4th August 1919. The case came up for hearing on the 12th August 1919 and the plaintiff firm applied to the Court for an order striking off the defence of the two defendants. The learned Subordinate Jud