LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD Vs. HANS RAJ SAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition in directed against the order passed by the Additional Senior subordinate judge, Amritsar, on November 8, 1979. The order as passed on an application having been preferred by the petitioner-Bank under Order IX, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, for restoration of its suit dismissed in default on July 24, 1978. t was stated in the said application that the counsel for the petitioner was busy in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge on the relevant date and when he came to attend the present case at about 3 p. m. he came to know that the suit had been dismissed in default. The application was resisted by the respondents and the trial court framed the necessary issue in the matter as to whether there was sufficient ground for restoration of the suit or not. The trial court considered the evidence of one witness G. S. Bahsker (A. W. 1) Manager of the petitioner-Bank who had deposed that when the case was called, he went to call his counsel who was busy in the court of Senior Subordinate Judge however when he returned to the court at 3 p. m. he found that the case had already been dismissed in default. The trial court did not believe this witness and also held that at the plaintiff had not availed of the opportunities given to them for producing their evidence the case was dismissed when no one appeared for the plaintiff on the date of the hearing.

(2.) A perusal of the trial Court's record indicates that the suit was dismissed in default on July 24, 1978 at 2-30 p. m. The question which falls for determination is as to whether the trial court was justified in acting in this manner. So far as the Subordinate Courts under the control of this court under the control of this court are concerned certain specific guidelines have been issued to them as provided in the High court rules and orders Rules 4, 5, and 6 part J. Chapter I, Volume I thereof, are to the following effect :-

(3.) Even on merits, the very fact that the suit was dismissed at 2-30 p. m. and the application for restoration was moved by the counsel within half an hour i. e. at 3 p. m. on the same day, shows that it is not a case of contumacious religence or wilful default. In this view of the matter the orders of the trial court dismissing the suit for same are liable to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly.