SANTRO Vs. RAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Hansi, dated June 10,1987.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs evidence had been concluded and the case was adjourned subject to the payment of Rs. 50/- as costs, but on June 10, 1987, for which date the case was adjourned, the costs were not paid. In the circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the suit for non-payment of costs. It is this order which is the subject to challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that even if the costs have not been paid, the suit could not be dismissed. He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Prem Sagar v. Phul Chand, (1983)85 P. L. R. 797 (F. B. ). In that case, the Full Bench has categorically laid down after interpreting Section 35-B, Code of Civil Procedure, that the resultant effect of the default on the date next following the date of the order of payment of costs would be that there after the defaulting party can no longer be permitted to add anything to its case. The case consequently would have to be decided on the limited material and evidence existing on the record in favour of such a party. The section does not in terms prescribe that either the suit must be dismissed or that the defence be struck down as a whole.