BENUDHAR SAHU Vs. BATAKRUSHNA RATH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Petitioner challenging the order of the First Munsif, Cuttack, rejecting an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore Money Suit No. 460 of 1977 which was dismissed for default on 20th of December, 1978. On that day when the suit was called for hearing, Plaintiff had applied for time on the ground that the requisite certificate under Section 18 -B of the Money -Lenders Act of 1939 had not been obtained and, therefore, if the suit was taken up for hearing, Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss.

(2.) IN spite of notice, the Defendants -opposite parties do not appear. The further difficulty in this case has been that the records of the original suit have already been destroyed after the lapse of the prescribed period. Therefore, for disposal of the civil revision, the record has been re -constructed. As the Defendants did not appear, a copy of their written statement, however, has not yet been brought on record.

(3.) I would accordingly allow the application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and direct that the suit be restored to file for disposal on merit. Since the Defendant has not chosen to appear in spite of notice, there would be no order for costs.