ESHWARAWWA Vs. AMARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner. The learned Counsel for respondent could not be heard as he could not keep himself present to canvass his arguments.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the concurrent orders of the Courts-below rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code for restoration of her petition filed under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1989.

(3.) THE petitioner had presented the petition under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code in the said Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1989 against respondent in the Trial Court seeking permission to sue as an indigent person for the reliefs prayed therein. That petition came to be dismissed for default on 4-7-1991. Subsequently, she made an application under Order 9, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1991 before the Trial Court to restore her said petition. The respondent opposed that application. A formal enquiry was held by the learned Munsiff. The petitioner adduced evidence in support of her said application. On the basis of evidence the learned Munsiff recorded positive finding holding that petitioner had shown sufficient cause for her non-appearance on 4-7-1991 in the said Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1989 as she was ill and was not in a position to attend the Court, but he dismissed her application in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1991 holding that the said application filed under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure code is not tenable since she had the right to make fresh application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. In her appeal before the learned Civil Judge, he also concurred with the conclusion of the learned Munsiff and rejected the appeal by judgment dated 29-3-1993. Hence this revision by the petitioner.