BHANUMATHI T Vs. R HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the petitioner. The suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for injunction was dismissed for default. I.A. No.256/95 filed by the respondents for restoration of the suit was allowed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court having found that the respondent has not satisfactorily explained the Cause for his absence on the day when the suit was dismissed for default, erred in allowing the LA. on extraneous reasons. The reason given by the respondent in the LA. (I.A.256/95) for his absence on the day when the suit was posted for trial was that due to failure of the bus in which he was travelling, he could not attend the Court. The lower Court rejected this plea on the ground that the respondent has not produced the bus-ticket or let in any evidence to establish that the respondent was travelling in the bus and the bus failed. So saying, the lower Court categorically found as follows:

(3.) It is now well settled that when once the lower Court found that the cause for the absence of the petitioner-plaintiff has not been established, the Court has no jurisdiction to allow the application overriding the express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. This point has been decided in a catena of decisions, e.g., K Suryaprakasa Rao vs. V. Satyanarayana; Futolitc Colour Labs. vs. Aver Foto Print System; Managing Director, APSRTC vs. L Leelavathi; Malti Devi vs. Hon'ble Board of Revenue, U.P., etc. Following these decisions, I hold that the lower Court having found that the respondent has not established that on account of failure of the bus in which he was travelling he could not attend the Court, erred in allowing the petition. This revision petition is therefore allowed and the order impugned is set aside. No costs.