M GURUNATHA RAO Vs. B RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff under S. 12 of the Hyderabad Small Cause Courts Act. It is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes at Hyderabad in Small Cause Suit No. 298/61 decreeing the plaintiff's suit only in part for a sum of Rs. 25 and directing the plaintiff to pay the costs of the suit to the defendant, while dismissing the rest of the claim of the plaintiff . the suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of rent, water and electric charges amounting to Rs. nP. The trial of the suit commenced on 1 2-7-61 when the witness of both parties were examined and some documents were marked. "The evidence was closed and the case was posted to 15-7-61 for arguments. On that date, however, the case was adjourned to 19-7-61. On. 19-7-61, the defendant and his advocate were absent. The defendants Advocate addressed arguments and judgment was reserved. Then, on 28-7-61, the learned Additional Judge delivered judgment deciding the case on the merits. After considering the evidence, , the learned Addl. Judge accepted the defendant's case and decreed the suit only for an amount of Rs. 25 and directed the plaintiff to pay the costs of the suits to the defendant.

(2.) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application (I. A. No. 298/5/61) requesting the Court to restore the suit. The learned Additional Judge held that there was no question of restoring the suit as it had been decreed on merits. Apparently, he was of the view that he had disposed of the suit acting under O. 17 R. 3, C. P. C., which reads as follows:-

(3.) The plaintiff has preferred his revision against the judgment and decree of the lower Court and taken as a ground of revision that the lower Court was in error in the circumstances of this case, in proceeding under R. 3, of O. 17, but should have acted under R. 2 of O. 17, if it did not think fit to adjourn the suit. Rule 2 of O. 17 provides :