MUKTA DEVI PANDA Vs. HARISH CHANDRA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner. On 4-9-61 Title Suit No. 17 of 1960 was posted for hearing in the Court of Munsif, Rayagada. Petitioner's case is that she had taken steps for summoning her witnesses for that day. She had engaged two pleaders-Sri v. K. Rao and Sri N. K. Das. The latter had been to Cuttack prior to 4-9-1961 on some urgent personal work. Sri V. K. Rao had to suddenly go to Jeypore in a professional work on 3-9-1961. A petition for adjournment was filed by the registered clerk of Sri V. K. Rao on 4-9-1961 for accommodation for one day only, that is, till 5-9-1961, to enable Sri Rao to come back to Rayagada to conduct the suit. On 4-9-1961 the pleader's clerk filed the petition without affixing court-fee as the stamp vendor was absent by the time. After filing the petition, the clerk went to the house of the Stamp Vendor to fetch court-fee. In the meantime the suit was called and dismissed. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. for setting aside the order dismissing the suit. The main sufficient cause alleged was unavoidable absence of the pleader in his own professional work at jeypore.

(2.) THE opposite party opposed the application for restoration of the suit. There was assertion in the counter that the absence of Sri Rao, Plea-der, did not amount to sufficient cause and that the plaintiff and his pleaders should not have been absent on the date of hearing.

(3.) THE learned Courts below held that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of the pleader (Sri Rao ). They dismissed the application under Order 9, rule 9, C. P. C. The Civil Revision has been filed against the appellate judgment dated 29-6-1962 of the learned District Judge, Koraput-Jeypore.