LAL CHAND Vs. BIRHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.8.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Fazilka, whereby he struck off the defence of the defendant-petitioners on the ground of non-payment of costs for an earlier adjournment.

(2.) Lal Chand petitioner No. 1 is stated to be an old man. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are his sons. Out of them, Rajinder petitioner No. 2 alone is residing in the village and was defending the suit. In the application dated 21.8.1986 filed by the petitioners in the trial Court it was stated that Smt. Banasi Devi, wife of Rajinder, was suddenly taken ill. She was taken to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, on 15.7.1986, where she was operated upon. She was discharged from the hospital on 8.9.1986. it was during the absence of Rajinder that on 21.7.1986, at the instance of the petitioners, the proceedings in the suit were adjourned. The adjournment so granted was subject to payment of Rs. 25/- as costs. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 14.8.1986, the counsel for the petitioners, on the costs being demanded by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, could not pay the same as Rajinder petitioner could not contact his counsel. It is his case that from 15.7.1986 to 8.9.1986 he remained at Rohtak attending on his wife. No reply to this application was filed on behalf of the respondent in the trial Court. Despite this, their application was dismissed.

(3.) No one appears on behalf of the respondent in this Court also. So the contention of the petitioners that Rajinder petitioner who was prosecuting the defence on their behalf was absent from the village because of unavoidable circumstances stands uncontroverted. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners could not pay the costs on the adjourned date because of circumstances beyond the control of Rajinder petitioner.