MANOHAR LAL Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur, in an application filed by Manohar Lal, defendant-petitioner, for dismissal of the suit of Mahesh Chand, plaintiff-respondent, on account of non-compliance of the order of the Court directing the respondent to pay Rs. 30/- as costs of an adjournment.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. When the case was heard on 6th of January, 1982, on the request of the respondent, an adjournment was granted for producing evidence in rebuttal, subject to payment of Rs. 30/- as costs. Admittedly, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 16 of January, 1982, these costs were not paid. It transpires that after the suit proceeded at a later stage, consequent upon the disposal of a revision-petition pending in this Court, the plaintiff-respondent tendered the amount of costs on 4th of June, 1982, which the petitioner refused to accept. The petitioner then moved the present petition before the Court praying that, in view of the default committed by the respondent in payment of costs at the relevant time, his suit should be dismissed. The trial Court considered this application but found that, as the costs had been refused by the petitioner later on, the respondent could not be disallowed to prosecute the case. The attention of the trial Court was specifically invited to a Full Bench decision of this Court as reported in Anand Parkash v. Bharat Bhushan Rai and another, 1982 1 RCR(Rent) 1 but the trial Court failed to apply the dictum of law as laid down in this authority merely by observing that the facts of the present case are different.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be sustained. In Anand Parkash's case ., it was clearly held by the Full Bench as follows :-