VIRUPAXAPPA Vs. REVANAPPA SIDDAPPA GANIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal undear Rule 1 of Order 43 CPC is by the 1st defendant in OS.37/1974 on the file of the Civil Judge at Haveri. The appellant is aggrieved by an order made by the Civil Judge on IA.2 filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) IA.2 was for the grant of injunction under Or.39 CPC. It would appear the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (1st defendant) and defendant 5 was not present when the case was called on for hearing on 7-9-1974 to which date IA.2 had been posted specifically for objections by the said defendants. On that day, the learned Counsel appearing for the ether defendants, presumably appearing for the Counsel who had been absent, requested for time. The learned Civil Judge refused to accede to the request merely on the ground that the said Counsel appearing proxy, had not filed vakalath for those defendants. He also made the temporary injunction absolute by the same order, without examining the truth or otherwisa of the allegations made in support of an application for suck injunction.

(3.) It seems to me that the learned Civil Judge was in somewhat of a hurry in making the order impugned herein. It is a well settled practice of the Courts that learned Counsel are permitted to be represented proxy by other Counsel, and any representation made by them must be taken to be the representation of the Counsel en record, unless it is shown to be otherwise. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in rejecting the request on the ground aformentioned.