SUDHIR CHANDRA GUHA Vs. JOGESH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs had brought two suits, namely, Title Suit No. 18 of 1959 and Rent Suit No. 3 of 1959, the first one being for ejectment from the suit houses and the second one for rents, and obtained decrees in their favour. Ultimately these decrees were affirmed by the High Court. For the subsequent periods the plaintiffs filed three suits, namely, Money Suits Nos. 1/66, 3/69 and 73/62 for realisation of rents from the defendants. The suits were fixed for peremptory hearing on 13-5-1971 on which date on the prayer of plaintiff No. 1 the suits were ordered to be heard as analogous by the Assistant District Judge. Dibrugarh before whom the cases were pending. On that date the plaintiffs also filed an application for adjournment on the ground of illness and the suits were ultimately fixed for hearing on 1-7-1971. On that day a petition was filed on behalf of the defendants for adjournment on the ground that defendant No. 1 was lying ill at Calcutta. Plaintiff No. 1 filed objection to that petition, inter alia, on the ground that the allegation of defendant No. 1 that he was lying ill at Calcutta was false. The learned Assistant District Judge, after hearing, rejected the application and the suits were ordered to be taken up for hearing. The counsel for the defendants retired from the proceedings stating that he had no further instructions to proceed with the suits. Accordingly the suits were taken up exparte and the evidence of Sri Jogesh Chandra Das, plaintiff No. 1, was recorded in Money Suit 73/62 which was the main case and that evidence was taken into account in all the three suits already ordered to be heard as analogous. The suits were decreed ex parte by the same order. Separate decrees were ordered to be prepared.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed an application for taking the evidence of defendant No. 1 on commission at Calcutta. Shri Jogesh Chandra Das, Plaintiff No. 1, submitted before the Court that he would confine his objection only to the two questions of law mentioned above and that defendant No. 1 need not be examined on commission.