AMIJ BHUYAN Vs. AKRAM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision from a defendant against an order of the Additional Sub -Judge, L.A.D. dated 30.l1.1949 by which the order of the trial Judge dismissing defendant's application for Betting aside the ex -parte decree passed against him was affirmed.

(2.) ON 17 -8 -1948, the learned Munsiff fixed the case for peremptory hearing on 24 -9 -1948 on that date both the parties prayed for time for effecting a compromise. Time was allowed till 3 -12 -1943. The order dated 24 -9 -1948 also embodies the direction that failing compromise, parties must come ready with witnesses. On 3.12.1948, plaintiff was ready with witnesses. Defendant prayed for an adjournment on the ground that his witnesses were absent. His petition was rejected. Defendant retired and the suit was decreed ex parte. It was expressly stated in the order that the defendant had retired and that the suit be taken up ex parte. Plaintiff's witnesses were then examined and a decree ex parte was passed. It is clear from the order that the defendant did not participate in the trial after his application for adjournment was rejected. He did not cross -examine witnesses or produce any evidence that may have been available. The examination of plaintiff's witnesses came after the retirement of the defendant.

(3.) ON appeal, the learned Additional Sub -Judge agreed with the learned Munsiff that the application of the defendant was not competent. He did not go into the question whether sufficient cause bad been shown for setting side the ex parte decree.