YARE TALI AND ORS. Vs. TAPAK TALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Etc. learned counsel for the sole respondent.

(2.) This appeal has been directed against the order dated 22.9.2000 issued by the Circle Officer, (J), along on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District in Misc. case No. 2/2000 dismissing the application, under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2000 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District in Misc. case No. 2/2000 dismissing the case for default.

(3.) Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that on the date, i.e., 4.9.2000, fixed for hearing, the counsel for the appellant could not be present before the Court due to the death of his mother and eventually the appeal was dismissed for default. Being dissatisfied with the said dismissal, the appellants' counsel immediately preferred an application under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9, CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal for default and for restoration of the case to file. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the said application for restoration of the Misc. case No. 2/2000 was dismissed in limine by the learned Deputy Commissioner by his impugned order without even hearing the appellants or his counsel and accordingly it is submitted that on that count along this impugned order should be set aside and quashed. On the other hand, Mr. K. Etc, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that there was no illegality or infirmity committed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in dismissing the case for default for non -appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants.