SAGAR BAI Vs. BHAI RATILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against an order under Order IX, rule 9 of the Code, dated 27th March 1967, passed by the 5th Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, and involves a question of frequent occurrence.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are: THE suit was initially fixed for evidence on 25th April 1966, but as the Court was proceeding on leave, the hearing was adjourned to 6th July 1966. On 6th July 1966, neither the plaintiff nor his witnesses were present. THE Court, accordingly, passed the following order-

(3.) THESE authorities, instead of supporting the learned counsel are really against him. In Govardhan Badrilal v. Ganesh Balkrishna, Naik J emphasised the distinction between a case where the Court proceeds under Order XVII, rule 3 and decide the case on merits followed by a decree and, another, where there is neither a decision on merits nor a decree passed in fact. His Lordship was dealing with a case where the Court had proceeded to decide the suit on merits, and, therefore, the observations at p. 328: