SATHEY
Hashmat Rai – Appellant
Versus
Lalchand – Respondent
1. This is a revision petition by defendant 1 against the order dated 23-6-51 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, restoring the non-applicant no. 1 plaintiff's suit dismissed under O. 17, R. 3, Civil P. C, on 7-5-51 to file.
2. The suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 21-4-51, but was adjourned, subject to payment of Rs. 25 as cost, to 7-5-51, as his witnesses were not summoned. On 7-5-51 the plaintiff was absent and his counsel stated that he had no instructions; the cost of Rs. 25 was also not paid and the Court therefore dismissed the suit under O. 17, R. 3, Civil P. C.
3. On 29-5-51 the plaintiff filed an application for restoration of the suit to file on the ground that he was taken ill and had gone to Bombay before 21-4-51 asking his counsel to seek an adjournment, that he was not informed of the order for cost or the date of the next hearing and hence could not give any instructions nor could he pay the cost; that the mention of O. 17, R. 3 in the order dated 7-5-51, was an accidental error for order O. 17, R. 2 and the application was thus tenable. Defendant 1 denied the allegations and contended that the application was not tenable and stated that the question be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.