SANKARAN Vs. BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner challenges a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode, sitting on the small cause side. The plaintiff who was conducting a kuri claimed from the defendant a sum of Rs. 568-30 With interest etc. The Court below disposed of the suit on the merits and negatived a portion of the claim of the plaintiff on the score that no evidence had been given by the plaintiff and that he "did not even care to go to the box and swear to the allegations in the plaint." In short the lower Court upheld the plea of the defendant because "the evidence of DW. 1 (defendant) remains uncontradicted". The plaintiff who has come up in revision states that his advocate had applied for an adjournment which was wrongly refused. The case had been posted admittedly to 16-10-1968. On that date the Court was engaged with a Sessions Case and it is the case of the revision petitioner that civil cases involving examination of witnesses or long arguments are not usually taken on days when Sessions Cases are being tried and on this assumption the advocate sent away his client, the plaintiff, stating that the case would not be taken up that day. However, the suit was taken up after lunch and the prayer of the petitioner's advocate for a little time to telephone and get the party was refused and the case was disposed of. A statement has been produced before me from the advocate Shri P.C. Ramachandra Menon who appeared before the Subordinate Judge. Therein he substantially supports what has been put forward in the revision petition and the respondent is unable to contradict those facts.

(2.) I think the learned Subordinate Judge acted somewhat arbitrarily in refusing a short time prayed for by counsel for the plaintiff. A judge can afford to not only correct but also compassionate, within limits. I do not think the party should have been visited with the punishment of negativing his claim when he was really ready to conduct his case but for the information given by his advocate that there was no likelihood of the case being taken up that day. And the advocate himself could not be blamed because the practice of not taking up civil cases when a sessions trial is going on is not unusual and the advocate naturally did not want to detain his client, waiting indefinitely for the case to be taken up when the chances were that it would not be attended to. No doubt the court's business should not be dislocated by reckless absence of counsel or his client under the convenient pretext that the court was occupied with some other work, expected to take considerable time. While frowning upon such frivolous and disingenuous tactics and defaults, courts should not keep all advocates and parties on tenter hooks and waiting listlessly, abandoning all their other work only to infer at the end of the day that all the cases have been adjourned for want of time. This is all the more important in subordinate courts where parties and witnesses are constrained to hover about the court cursing their misfortune in having had to come to court. It would be far more reasonable to arrange the work of the Court and allow persons whose cases are not likely to be attended to, to go although no unreasonably unready party can be allowed to get away with it. The mere fact that a man has a case in Court should not mean that all his other work should be suspended on all hearing dates even when there is not the remotest chance of the case being taken up. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff's grievance is genuine and he should have been given an opportunity to adduce his evidence and present his case. In the interest of justice I set aside the decree of the Trial Court, but express no opinion whatever on the merits. The lower Court will take back the case on file and dispose it of after giving an opportunity to both sides to let in such evidence as they may desire to. I allow the revision petition. There will be no order as to costs.