LALA PARAS RAM Vs. NOOR JAHAN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's application in revision. It furnishes an instance of how difficulties can arise as a result of an attempt to enforce an incomplete order.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The defendants had filed their written statements and issues had been framed on 19-10-1953. 4-1-1954 was fixed as the date for final hearing. On that date the defendant No. 1 applied that the case be adjourned and adjournment to 21-4-1954 was allowed on payment of Rs. 25 as costs within fifteen days. On the adjourned date, the defendant again applied for adjournment on the ground of illness. The order passed on this application was in these words: "The defendant's application for adjournment on the ground of illness allowed on payment of Rs. 25 as costs to the opposite party to be paid within a month. Fix 11-8-54 for final hearing." Cost was not paid by the defendant within a month as ordered. On 10-7-1954, the plaintiff pointed out to the Court that costs had not been paid as ordered and prayed that the defence of the defendant should be struck off- On the same date an application of the defendant came up for disposal in which he had prayed for extension of time on payment of costs. The learned Munsif held that as the defendant had not paid the costs within the time fixed and as it was of the utmost importance that the order passed by the Court should be carried out by the parties, the defence of the defendant should be struck off. He, therefore, ordered that the defence of the defendant be struck out and further directed the case to proceed ex parte.

(3.) Against the above order the present application in revision has been filed and it is contended on behalf of the defendant that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to strike out the defence of the defendant simply because he had for reasons beyond his control failed to comply with the order for payment of the costs within the fixed time.