MOHD-UN-NISA Vs. FAYAZ ALI HASHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this case Fayaz Ali Hashmi instituted a suit against the petitioner Mst. Mohammad-un-Nisa Begum under Order 37, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, for the recovery of Rs. 7,885 on the basis of a pronote in July, 1956. The defendant applied under Order 37, rule 3 for permission to defend the suit which was based on a pronote and receipt on printed Urdu forms bearing the thumb mark and signature of the defendant, and the execution of these documents was not denied, the defendant's case being that plaintiff was her employee and somehow had obtained her thumb-marks and signature on these documents. In these circumstances on the 13th of November, 1956, the Court passed an order permitting the defendant to defend the suit on the condition that the amount in suit and costs were deposited in Court within two months. The amount in question was not deposited and on the 14th of January, 1957 the Court passed orders both dismissing an application for extension of the time and decreeing the suit.

(2.) On the 9th of March, 1957 the petitioner simultaneously filed a revision petition in which she challenged the order of the 13th November, 1956 by which she was only permitted to defend the suit on depositing the amount in question and application under Order 44, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for permission to appeal against the decree in forma pauperis. The petitions came before my Lord the Chief Justice and Chopra, J. on the 27th of March, 1957 and in both notice was ordered to be issued and an order of stay of execution was passed.

(3.) At the outset the objections were raised on behalf of the decree-holder respondent that since the order which was challenged in the revision petition had already been superseded by the order decreeing the suit, no revision petition could possibly be entertained and that there was nothing in the terms of the judgment, on which the decree was based on account of which the Court could in the words of the proviso in Order 44 rule 1 see reason to think that the decree was contrary to law or some usage having the force of law or is otherwise erroneous or unjust.