KAMAL DEVI Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unnecessary to go into the history of the litigation in the Court below. Suffice it to say that on 3-2-1966, the learned Subordinate Judge, Shri R. K. Synghal, passed the following order : -

(2.) BEFORE me, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has not dealt with the plaintiff's application under order 26, Rule 9 and Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, in a judicial manner and has apparently rejected it arbitrarily by merely describing it as "fazul".

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has on the other hand attempted to show that there was really no purpose for issuing a commission on the facts and circumstances of this case. He has sought some assistance for his submission from an order of the Court dated 28-8-1965 and also from the order dated 6-9-1965, but I am wholly unable to get any assistance from those orders for the purpose of discerning the reasons on the basis of which prayer under Order 26, Rule 9, was disallowed by the Court below.