M INDRA MALINI Vs. K RAGHAVAN MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD petitioners' learned Advocate. The respondents have been served and are absent. This case is a classic illustration of how the learned Judges in the Trial Courts on many occasions waste precious judicial time on causes that are totally unnecessary and unworthy. This was a recovery suit which was originally filed before the Court of the Addl. I Munsif at Mysore for recovery of a small sum of money and because of the change of monetary jurisdiction the suit was transferred to the Small Causes Court. Obviously the plaintiff was unaware of this and because of his absence the suit was dismissed for default. To compound matters the plaintiff died and it was only after a few months that the petitioners who are his legal heirs came across the papers and took out necessary proceedings for being brought on record but more importantly for restoration of the original suit. The respondent though served did not appear and instead of straightaway restoring the suit and proceeding with it on merits the learned Trial Judge has gone into very lengthy and elaborate debates on all sorts of the principles of law and has held that the restoration cannot be permitted. The order in question is badly worded. The reasoning itself is not only incorrect but it is down right and perverse. There are absolutely no defences for an exercise of this type because the learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the original plaintiff has died and that his family members on coming across the records have tried to take necessary corrective action and instead of a sympathetic approach the Court has been harsh, the Court has been technical, the Court has been unhelpful and the litigation which ought to have been complete through the passing of a straight decree has instead got complicated and delayed for six years.

(2.) I see absolutely no ground on which the restoration could have been refused. The impugned order is set aside. The suit is restored. The original defendants though served have remained absent and in this view of the matter, there is nothing left except to pass a decree as prayed for. There is no need to remand the case to the Trial Court for this purpose. While allowing the revision, it is necessary to also decree the suit in question. The Trial Court to draw up the decree and proceed according to law. The revision succeeds and stands disposed of. No order as to costs.