DURGAPRASAD RAMNIWAS PODDAR Vs. MESSRS. AMIN & DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the above Special Civil Application is the plaintiff in Suit No. 6263 of 1966, pending in the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay. On Feb. 15, 1969, the defendant took out a Notice of Motion for taking on record his written statement and counterclaim. When this Notice of Motion came up for hearing before a Judge in the said Court on Feb. 26, 1969, the plaintiff's attorney was absent. The defendant was represented by an advocate. The plaintiff applied that he should be heard in person.

(2.) Purporting to act under r. 360 of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Courts Rules, 1948, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court held that the plaintiff could not be allowed to appear or to argue his case or to say anything as he was represented by an advocate. That rule runs as under :

(3.) Mr. Dhanuka, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the learned Judge misconstrued the rule in holding that even though on a particular date when the matter came up for hearing, in fact a party was not represented by an advocate, the rule prevented the Court from hearing the party.