GAYAM ARUGOBA REDDI Vs. MANIKLAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point to be decided in this revision petition is whether the lower Court could have dismissed the case for default. The facts are that the Plaintiff's suit was stayed by the lower Court as per order dated 4 -12 -1951 under the provisions of Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure in view of another case between the same parties that was pending in the Court, of the Sub -Judge, at Hyderabad; The lower Court on 4 -12 -1951 while ordering the stay of the suit stated that the suit be kept pending to 4 -1 -1952 and the result of the suit pending before the Sub -Judge be awaited. Parties admit that on this date the suit pending before the Sub -Judge was not disposed of and it is still pending. Though it was so pending the lower Court on 4 -1 -1952 by its order under revision dismissed the case for default. The question to be decided is whether 4 -1 -1952 was fixed for the hearing of the case. I am of the opinion that the case was not fixed for hearing. It was only adjourned 'sine die' in order that the result of the suit pending before the Sub -Judge be known after which only according to the orders of the lower Court passed on 4 -12 -1951 the Court would fix a date FOR hearing. Manohar Dass v. Birandari Sheikhupurain, AIR 1936 Lah 280 (A), it was held that by the hearing of the suit is meant the hearing at which the Judge would be either taking evidence or hearing arguments or would have to consider the question relating to the determination of the suit which would enable him to come to adjudication upon it. It is clear that 4 -1 -1952 was not fixed for considering any question relating to the determination of the suit in the lower Court. The order for dismissal for default is, therefore, incorrect. It must be set aside. I accordingly set aside the said order, direct the lower Court to take the suit on its file and proceed according to law. Costs will abide the result.