PADMAMMA Vs. VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision in C R P. No. 2622 of 1980 is directed against the order passed in LA. No. 2414 of 1979 in R.A. No. 217 of 1977,

(2.) The landlord-respondent herein filed R.C. No. 77/73 for evicting the tenant who is the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default. When the R.A. No. 217/77 was called for hearing on 28-9-1979, neither the appellant nor her counsel was present. Hence the appeal was dismissed. Against that order, LA. No. 2414/79 was filed on the same day by the Advocate with a request for setting aside the order passed in R.A. No. 217/77. But the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, dismissed the same. Hence the tenant preferred this revision. She also filed another revision C R.P. No. 2621/1980 against the order dismissing the appeal R A. No. 217/77 with abundant caution.

(3.) Sri Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the counsel who was engaged in R.A. No. 217/77 filed affidavit along with I.A. No. 2414/79 and in that affidavit he explained that he attended the Court to proceed with R.A. No. 217/77 and as he noticed that the Court would take some time to call his appeal, he went to another Court in connection with some other case, and by the time he came to the Court to proceed with R.A. No. 217/77, he came to know that it was dismissed for default; and hence, he immediately filed LA. No. 2414/79 along with his affidavit and he therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed in LA, No, 2414/79,