SULTAN SALEH BIN OMER Vs. VIJAYACHAND SIRIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for revising the order passed by the 3rd Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 765 of 1964 in O. S. No. 93 of 1963, filed by the defendants.

(2.) The facts relevant for determination of the question in controversy may briefly be stated. The suit was filed on the foot of a promissory note, and the defence was that it was not executed in the circumstances stated by the plaintiff, and that it was not supported by consideration. Naturally, the plaintiff had to prove execution, and the defendant had to establish want of consideration. Appropriate issues were framed. On 8-4-1964, the trial of the suit commenced, when P. W. 1 was examined and the evidence on his side was closed, reserving his right to adduce rebuttal evidence on the issue relating to absence of consideration. After some adjournments, the suit was posted to 4-7-1984 for the evidence of the defendants. On that day, the plaintiff and his Advocates were absent, but the Advocate for the defendant was present with only one witness, who was examined in chief. On that day, the case was passed over once because of the absence fit the plaintiffs Advocates. Even by the time the chief-examination of D. W. 1 was over, the plaintiffs advocates did not turn up, and a petition was filed for adjournment by some advocate, but it was dismissed. The Advocate for the 1st defendant represented that he wanted to examine one more witness who had to be summoned, but who was not summoned for that day, i.e., 4-7-1964. That request was also not granted, and the City Civil Judge thereupon noted that the defendants evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments.

(3.) The plaintiffs advocate then filed the present application. 1. A. No. 765 of 1964, explaining me unavoidable circumstances in which both the advocates for the plaintiff were absent, and praying for reopening of the trial of the suit, and giving a chance to the plaintiff to cross-examine D. W. 1, and an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. This application was allowed by the trial Court on the ground that in the circumstances it saw no objection for reopening trial of the suit on payment of Rs. 10 by way of costs to the defendant.