MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. PRAMOD KISHORE DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not necessary to state the detailed facts regarding the respective cases of the parties. The plaintiff's suit was for recovery of the Jeep and the new spare parts supplied for repairs and for other reliefs. On 14-11-67 the defendant filed written statement denying his liability. On 15-4-68 the suit was fixed for hearing in the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. The plaintiff applied for time which was rejected. He accordingly got ready and filed hazira. The defendant did not appear despite repeated calls. He was set ex parte and the suit was heard ex parte. One of the employees of the municipality was examined in support of the plaintiff's case. The suit was posted to 16-4-68 for judgment. On 16-4-68 the judgment was not pronounced as the Judge was absent on leave and the suit was adjourned to 17-4-68 for judgment. On that day the defendant filed an application for recalling the ex parte order passed on 15-4-68 on the allegation that the defendant was under a confusion that there was morning Court and after coming to Court he returned back home to come again at 11 A. M. but at home he found his child severally ailing and there was sufficient cause for his absence on 15-4-68. A Misc. Case was started and was fixed for hearing to 29-4-68. No evidence was adduced on either side. The misc. case was however allowed on contest subject to payment of Rs. 50/- by the defendant to the plaintiff by 11-5-68 failing which the application for restoration was directed to be rejected. It was ordered that if the amount was paid the suit would continue from the stage which meant that P. W. 1 would be further cross-examined. It is stated that the costs have been deposited. Without withdrawing the same the plaintiff has filed this civil revision against the impugned order.

(2.) MR. Misra for the plaintiff contends that the order passed by the learned subordinate Judge is without jurisdiction and is contrary to the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 993, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar.

(3.) ORDER 9, Rule 6 C. P. C. , so far as relevant, stands thus: -" 6. (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then- (a) If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the court may proceed ex parte; Admittedly in this case summons was served. The defendant did not appear on the day fixed for hearing. The suit was therefore, rightly ordered to proceed ex parte under Rule 6 (1) (a ). Rule 7 lays down:--