SEKADIYA Vs. FUNDLIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only substantial question involved in this petition for revision is as regards the competency of a review petition against an order pronouncing judgment by the improper exercise of powers under Order 10, Rule 4 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE opponent -plaintiff filed the present suit, out of which this revision petition arises, for a declaration regarding her title to certain land as the sister heir of one Somli. The suit was filed against the four defendants who claimed title to the said land and whose names were directed to be mutated in place of deceased Somli.

(3.) THE written statement incorporating the aforesaid pleas was submitted on 28 -9 -1957. The court thereupon asked the plaintiff to file a rejoinder and at the same time required the parties to remain present on the next date to which the suit was adjourned namely 21 -10 -1957. On the adjourned date the plaintiff's counsel informed that the plaintiff did not want to file any rejoinder. The court thereupon required the parties to remain present on the next date of hearing which was fixed on 8 -11 -1957. On that day the defendants did not remain present. An application for adjournment was however submitted on behalf of the defendants that the defendant was ill and could not attend the court that day. The court allowed the application and fixed 26 -11 -1957 as the next date. On that day the plaintiff's counsel was present but neither the defendant's counsel nor their counsel were present. The court thereupon at once proceeded to pronounce judgment against them by recourse to Order 10, Rule 4 (2), C.P.C.