ASTAILA Vs. NAJUMA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal, dated March 1, 1973.

(2.) The only question for determination is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to restore the suit ? It is not disputed that the application for restoration was filed within the period of limitation. It is clear from the record that the plaintiff had summoned witnesses for June 10, 1971. Some of the witnesses had also been served for that date. It is, however, not clear from the record as to whether the witnesses of the plaintiff mere present on June 10, 1971 or not. The adjournment was, however, given on account of the illness of the counsel for the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that she was not intimated about the next date of hearing by her counsel and, therefore, she could not appear on that date. Her counsel fell ill and he also could not present himself before the court on the date of hearing. In the application for restoration she, however, stated that her counsel was out of station, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Moti Ram Aggarwal, the counsel for the petitioner in trial Court has died. It may be that on account of illness, Mr. Moti Ram might have gone out of station. The two statements are not irreconcilable. It is apparent on the record that the plaintiff had summoned her witnesses for June 10, 1970. Only one adjournment for leading the evidence had been taken by her counsel. It was not such a case in which various adjournments had been given to the plaintiff for recording the evidence and she failed to do so.

(3.) After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that there are sufficient reasons for restoration of the suit.