CHANDRAMANI DEVI Vs. RAMA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this civil revision arising out of a confirming decision rejecting the application for restoration of the suit dismissed for default.

(2.) Plaintiff 2 is the husband of plaintiff 1. Case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff 2 was looking after the suit which was posted to 1-2-1982. A few days prior to the date fixed for hearing his left leg had to be plastered on account of fracture and the plaster was removed only on 30-1-1982. As he had severe pain after removal of the plaster, he could not attend the Court in time on 1-2-1982, though reached late at about 1 p.m. by which time the suit had already been dismissed. Case of the defendants challenging restoration is that plaintiff 2 was hale and hearty and with evil intention of prolongation of the litigation he did not take any step on the date fixed.

(3.) Petitioners examined P.W. 1, a doctor, and the plaintiff 2 as P.W. 2. Endorsement made in a prescription issued in name of Bhikari Misra was also proved as Ext. 1. Defendants did not examine any witness nor did they prove any document in support of their case. Trial Court dismissed the application for restoration as P.W. 1 could not identify the petitioner 2 and on the finding that the petitioner 2 could not explain why he could not come to Court at 11 a.m. when he came at about 1 p.m. which proves his negligence.