NARAYANA RAO Vs. C V S LAXMIVILASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Gudivada in l.A. No. 1244/1976 setting aside the ex-parte decree in O.S. No. 481/1973 is questioned. The petitioner here in is the respondent-plaintiff in the l.A.

(2.) The suit OS. No. 481/1973 was posted to 4-9-1976 for the defendant's evidence. As the defendant's counsel was engaged in arguments in the Sub-Court, 3rd defendants's husband could not adduce evidence. This fact was represented to the Court when it was called at 1 P.M. The learned District Munsif passed over the matter. When the matter was called at 2-3C P.M. S.i V. Ramakrishnaiah, advocate, representing the defendants' counse submit'ed trial the defendants' counsel was engaged in the Sub-Court anc requested for adjournment. The learned District Munsif passed over the matter. When the matter was called again at 4-30 P.M., there was no repre sentation and the learned District Munsif passed ex.parte decree. The 3rc dcfendant filed the above mentioned 1 A., for setting aside the ex-parte decree. She explained the eircumstances under which she was not able to adduce evidence on behalf of the defendants. Her explanation is that her counsel was engaged in the arguments in the Sub-Court in an old suit and the counsel, therefore, could not attend the court and hence her husband could not give evidence 10 the absence to her counsel. She, therefore, requested that there is no negligence or laches on the part of the defendants and the explanation offered by her should be accepted and the ex parte decree should be set aside.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner-3rd defendant also submitted in his arguments that he was engaged in an old suit before the Sub Court and he took the whole day and hence he could not attend the Court, (though the petitioner's witnesses were ready and her husband was present for giving evidence. The 3rd defendant sated in her affidavit in the I.A., that she was ready with her witnesses and her husband was also presenr, but as her advocate was engaged in another Court, she could not examine her witnesses.