B SUNDERA GOWDA Vs. MARTIN DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a technical error in the impugned order. The revision petitioners who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court are aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, allowing the appeal filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 48/86 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur. The Principal Munsiff, Puttur had declined to pass an order on I.A. II in the said suit holding that the same shall be disposed of along with the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Puttur. But, however, when the matter was pending before the Civil Judge, Puttur, the case was withdrawn by an order made by the District Judge, Mangalore suo motu and directed to be heard by the Civil Judge, Mangalore. Counsel for defendant-appellant appeared before the transferee Court and the Counsel for plaintiffs-respondents failed to appear. In that circumstance, an order came to be passed remanding the matter to the Munsiff, Puttur directing him to dispose of I. A. II. Against the said order the plaintiffs-respondents have filed this revision inter alia contending that they had neither notice of the transfer nor an opportunity of being heard by the learned Civil Judge at Mangalore, which was the transferee Court.

(2.) A perusal of the order sheet shows that the order directing transfer of the suit was made on 27-10-1987. The records were therefore sent to the transferee Court and the case was called there on 12-11-1987. On 12-11-1987 neither of the parties was present. It was adjourned to 5-12-1987. Again neither of the parties was present and the Court adjourned the case to 20-1-1988. On that date again none of the parties was present and the case was adjourned finally to 30-1-1988 for arguments. On that date the appellant- defendant was represented by his Counsel while the Counsel for respondents-plaintiffs was absent. Case was adjourned again to 6-2-1988. On that date Counsel for appellant was not ready and it is not known from the order sheet whether the Counsel for respondents was present or not. However, case was adjourned to 8-2-1988 and on that date appellant's counsel and respondent's Counsel were not present, and judgment was passed. The order of the Munsiff, Puttur, pased on 5-6-1987 stating that I.A.II will be disposed of along with the suit was set aside and he was directed to dispose of I.A.II within one month from the date of the order i.e. 8-2-1988. If that has been given effect to, then this petition is really superfluous. But, on 5-4-1988 this Court had issued stay and it was submitted that nothing was done thereafter.

(3.) I find no merit in this petition.