CHINTAMANI NAIK Vs. SUBHADRA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 11 of 1993 of the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (SD), Keonjhar challenges the order dated 9th May, 2001 rejecting MJC No. 35 of 1998 filed by him under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the Title Suit which was one for partition had been posted to 3 -7 -1998 for hearing. On the said date in the first hour the Plaintiff sought adjournment through his Counsel on the ground that the latter was ill. The said petition was rejected and the hearing of the suit was adjourned to 2.00 p.m. that day. At 2.00 p.m. as no Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff the suit was dismissed for default. - -

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Defendant -Respondents further submitted that in consonance with the Code of Civil Procedure engagement of Counsel in another Court or his illness could not be a ground for adjournment of a case, unless of course the Plaintiff proves that there was no sufficient time to engage any other Counsel. According to the Learned Counsel, the evidence led in the MJC read as a whole would reveal that the suit was dismissed for deliberate laches of the Plaintiff and it is a fit case where the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court.