BRIJ GOPAL MISHRA Vs. DR. MANORAMA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Office is directed to restore the Vakalatnama filed on 12.7.2017 by Sri Uma Kant Mishra, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the order dated 6.4.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad is challenged whereby the Original Suit No. 243 of 2006 [Brij Gopal Mishra v. Dr. Manorama Srivastava (Sinha)] was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 9, Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is recorded in the order impugned that 6.4.2017 was the last date fixed for cross examination of PW-1, the plaintiff's witness. Despite repeated calls, none of the parties were present.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has wrongly been dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8 CPC as the defendant was also absent. In absence of both the parties, the suit could have been dismissed only under Order 9, Rule 3 CPC and in any case, the provision of Rule 8 Order 9 would not be attracted.