FATMABIBI MEHBOOBBHAI QURESHI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. S. K. Bukhari, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants drew my attention to the Rojkam of the said suit and it appears that the matter was adjourned from 24-9-1980 to 4-10-1980. On that day the matter could not be taken up and it was adjourned for hearing of Exhibit 47 as well as for recording evidence of plaintiffs to 21-10-1980. On that day, the plaintiffs gave an application for time. So it was adjourned to 18-11-1980 for evidence of plaintiffs and for hearing of Exhibit 47. On 18-11-1980 reply to Exhibit 47 was filed and suit was adjourned for hearing of Exhibit 47 to 9-12-1980. From 9-12-1980 it was adjourned to 23-12-1980 and thereafter to 7-1-1981 and thereafter to 13-1-1981. It was on 13-1-1981 that the respondent No. 2 made it known to the court that he did not press the said application Exhibit 47. It would therefore appear that after 18-11-1980 and on all subsequent dates the matter was fixed for hearing of Exhibit 47. Under the circumstances it could not be said that on 13-1-1981 the suit was fixed for hearing. On that day only Exhibit 47 was to be heard. Under these circumstances the learned trial judge should have further adjourned the matter for hearing of the suit and he should not have proceeded exparte against the appellants on that day.

(2.) As the Rojkam of the relevant dates shows the matter could not have been proceeded exparte against the appellants in their absence when the matter was not fixed for hearing but it was fixed only for hearing of Exhibit 47. In that view of the matter, the appeal requires to be allowed.

(3.) Held, that this is a good ground for setting aside an exparte decree as on a particular day the suit was not posted for hearing and therefore, the court should have further adjourned the matter for hearing of the suit.