CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. KAMLABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant had filed the Civil Suit for recovery of certain sum against the non-applicants. The suit was fixed for evidence on 21-2-1984. However, on that day, the applicantss Counsel asked for an adjournment and the case was accordingly adjourned to 11-4-1984. The representative of the applicant Bank was serving at Nagpur. He could not keep himself present in the Court at Saoner at 11. 45 A. M. when the case was first called. According to the applicant, the representative had already left for Saoner, but he could not reach there because he did not get the bus. He could reach there only at about 1. 30 P. M. However, on reaching the Court, he came to know that the suit was already dismissed in default. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE impugned order is passed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Daga contended that as the suit was dismissed in default, the order could not be under Order 17, Rule 3 C. P. C. refers to the decision of the case on merit. He has also relied on the two decisions of this Court in (Namdeo v. Motiram) A. I. R. 1975 Bombay 191 and an order in (A. S. Mani v. Dattatraya Ambadaspant Markandey) in Civil Revision Application No. 154 of 1983. . Both these decisions fully support the contention of Mr. Daga. Nobody appears on behalf of the non-applicants.

(3.) THE provisions of Order 17, Rule 2 read as under: