ANANT RAM NEGI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is plaintiff, whereas respondents are defendants in Civil Suit No. 21 -S/1 of 1997 filed in the Court of District Judge, Shimla and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2000, whereby his application under Order 9 Rule o of the Code of Civil Procedure, for restoration of the suit was dismissed.

(2.) In the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by learned counsel for the plaintiff it was stated that by bona fide mistake he had noted down the next date fixed for plaintiffs evidence as 27.11.1998 instead of 27.7.1998 and when he went to the court on 27.11.1998 to attend the hearing he did not find the case in the cause list and on enquiry he came to know that the case was listed on 27.7.1998 on which date it was dismissed in default for non -appearance of the plaintiff or his learned Counsel. The application is supported by the affidavit of learned Counsel for the plaintiff.

(3.) This application was resisted by defendants No. 3 and 4 only who besides taking preliminary objections that the application was hot maintainable being time barred, denied the allegation on merits.