MANORAMADEVI Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision -application is filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows: - -

(3.) THE decree -holder Kanhaiyalal contested the suit. He denied that the attached property belonged to the plaintiff. The Court thereupon framed an issue, the burden of proving which was cast on the plaintiff, and fixed the case for hearing evidence on 6 -10 -1955. On that date the plaintiff did not produce her witnesses. She herself was also not present and her pleader applied to the Court to adjourn the case. In the application for adjournment it was stated that the plaintiff would keep her witnesses present on the adjourned date. The Court granted the prayer and postponed the case to 22 -10 -1955. When the case was taken up on that date the plaintiff and her pleader were found to be absent. Her witnesses were also not present. The Court therefore dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this dismissal of her suit, the plaintiff has preferred this revision -application.