B.M. CHINNIAH SHETTY Vs. PUTTABASAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Or. 43, R. 1 Civil Procedure Code is by the plaintiffs in OS. 124 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff at Mercara. They are aggrieved by judgment of remand of the suit made by the Civil Judge, Mercara, in RA. 47/75;

(2.) The relevant facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly set out.

(3.) The plaintiff sued for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit property. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit and set up their own title and adverse possession. The suit was tried by the learned Munsiff and decreed. In the course of the trial of the suit, the defendants concerned went on taking several adjournments to adduce evidence on their behalf after the plaintiffs had closed their case. Ultimately they failed to adduce evidence nor were they present in Court. Two or three adjournments were granted at the instance of their counsel and the case was set down to 28.1.1975 for arguments without the evidence of the defendants the same having been closed on an earlier date namely 22.1.75. On 28.1.75 a further application IA-V came to be filed, strangely enough by the learned Counsel himself, purporting to be under Sec. 151 CPC, requesting for the re-opening of the case. The defendants however were absent even on that day. The court, after recording its reasons, rejected the said application and heard the arguments for the parties.