GATTU GAFOOR SAHEB Vs. B JAKKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned District Munsif, Adoni, dismissing a petition filed under section 151, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The petitioner filed S.C. No 119 of 1964 in the Court of the District Munsif, Adoni, for recovery of money due under a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant, who is the respondent herein. The defendant filed written statement denying having executed the suit promissory note and contending inter alia that the plaintiff should have obtained it by fraud and misrepresentation taking advantage of his illiteracy and that it is devoid of consideration. On the day, which was thereafter fixed for the trial of the suit, the defendant alone appeared in the Court and the plaintiff happened to be absent. Instead of dismissing the suit as provided in Order 9, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, the learned District Munsif somehow called upon the defendant to lead evidence. He examined the defendant who was present in Court, closed the evidence, heard arguments and reserved judgment in the case en that day. But shortly thereafter and even before the judgment was pronounced the plaintiff applied to the Court below in I.A. No. 328 of 1964 to reopen the case and permit him to adduce evidence. This petitin was allowed subject to payment by him of Rs. io to the defendant by way of costs and it was adjourned to 5th October, 1964 for payment of the costs. As this direction was not complied with by the plaintff, I.A. No. 328 of 1964 was dismissed on 5th October, 1964. On the second day after the dismissal of this petition, the plaintiff filed I .A. No. 349 of 1964, under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, seeking to have the delay in payment of the costs ordered in I.A. No. 328 of 1964 condoned, alleging that he was not aware of the adjournment of that petition for payment of costs, to 5th October, 1964 as he did not see the letter which his advocate wrote to him in this regard till the evening of 5th October, 1964 by reason of his absence from the village from 3Oth September, 1964 till the evening of 5th October, 1964 and that the delay in payment of the costs, which was due to reasons beyond his control, might be condoned. This application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay and extend time for payment of costs when once I.A. No 238 of 1964 was dismissed as it has thereafter become functus officio. This contention found favour with the learned District Munsif and he accordingly dismissed I.A. No. 349 of 1964. Hence this revision petition as, according to the petitioner, the Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction notwithstanding that it had the power to condone the delay and extend time for payment of the costs awarded in I.A. No. 328 of 1964.

(3.) Satyanarayana Raju, J., as he then was, before whom this petition came up for hearing in the first instance, referred it to a Bench and this is how the matter has come before us.