MARKARIDA CHARAN SENAPATI Vs. BISWANATH DUTTA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was the Defendant in suit No. 394 of 1949 and had taken adjournments on many occasions to get ready for the trial. On the date finally fixed for hearing namely, 2 -4 -1952, he was again absent. He produced a medical certificate in support of his plea that he was suffering from dysentery on that day. The trial court refused to adjourn the hearing any further and decreed the suit for Rs. 950/ - towards arrear rent due together with costs. The Petitioner then moved the Munsif under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the expert decree. The learned Munsif found that the Petitioner was not really ill and dismissed the petition. An appeal preferred to the District Judge against this order was also unsuccessful. Hence this Revision. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the suit being one for ejectment the Defendant may be afforded one more opportunity of contesting it. Mr. Das, appearing for the opposite parties vehemently opposes any such indulgence being shown to the Defendant. Having regard to the contentions raised and the issues involved I am inclined to give the Petitioner a further opportunity of proving his case. But I would put him to terms. The Defendant must deposit the entire rent decreed in the trial court, namely Rs. 950/ - together with costs, as well as the subsequent amounts accrued due at the rate claimed by the Plaintiff till the end of December 1953. The Petitioner shall also pay Rs. 25/ - as costs to, the other side. The suit will be restored to file on condition that the amounts as directed herein shall be deposited within the six weeks from this date. On the deposit being made the suit will be re -opened and both parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their cases. On failure to make the deposit the Revision will stand dismissed with costs.

(2.) REVISION dismissed.