NARAIN SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Shri Deepak Gupta for the plaintiff-petitioner and Shri D.D. Sood for the defendant-respondent I am of opinion that the order dated Sept. 20, 1990 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu, cannot be upheld.

(2.) A perusal of the order discloses that the learned Judge was of opinion that the suit of the petitioner had been dismissed for non-prosecution so that it could not be restored to the file. What the learned Judge meant, probably, was that an application for recalling an order of dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution was not competent.

(3.) The suit was dismissed because the petitioner was not present in Court on a date when he was to lead evidence in the main suit. His counsel was present in Court. The view taken by the learned Judge is that the presence of the counsel meant that the petitioner was present and further that he had failed to produce evidence in the case. As such, it was not a dismissal of the suit for default of appeal once of the plaintiff.