NATESA THEVAR Vs. VAIRAVAN SERVAIGARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in these two appeals. He instituted two suits O. S. Nos. 512 and 513 of 1947 in the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai, to set aside a decree dated 7-3-1946, passed in M. A. No. 151 of 1946 on the file of the Deputy Collector's Court, Pattukottai, on the ground of alleged fraud in service by the Revenue Inspector. These suits were transferred from the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai to the District Munsif's Court, Mannargudi, on grounds of administrative convenience by the District Judge, West Tanjore, and were numbered O. S. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1949 respectively. The suits were contested.

(2.) When the suits were taken up for hearing on 15-3-1949, the plaintiff presented an application I. A. No. 160 of 1949 for an adjournment. By an order passed by the learned District Munsif, the adjournment was refused on the ground that it was bereft of bona fides and the petition for adjournment was dismissed with costs and when the suits were taken up the pleader for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff was not prepared and refused to proceed with the case or adduce evidence or even examine himself, as the request for adjournment had been refused and therefore, the suits were dismissed. While dismissing the suits, the learned District Munsif observed that he was dismissing the suits under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P. C.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed and the learned District Judge of West Tanjore found that no appeal lay against the order of the District Munsif, dismissing the suits, as the suits were actually dismissed for default, the order really being one under Order 17, Rule 2 and not being one under Order 17, Rule 3, C. P. C.