PIARO DEVI Vs. ANANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question relating to the interpretation of Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) arises in this petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants' ).

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit. Issues were framed on 15-9-2001 and the matter was listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 7-12-2001. His evidence was not present on the said date and on his request, the matter was adjourned to 22-2-2002. On this date also, the plaintiff did not produce the evidence. At the request of the plaintiff, the trial Court adjourned the suit of the plaintiff to 3-5-2002 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/ -. On 3-5-2002 neither the plaintiff nor his counsel were present. The trial Court passed the following order :-"present : None for the plaintiff. Shri J. C. Kaushal, advocate for the Defendants. Called several times. None has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. He and his Ld. Counsel are absent despite knowledge. Even no PW is present despite of the grant of last opportunity. Previous costs of Rs. 100/- not paid. It is 2. 30 P. M. Thus, this suit is dismissed in default u/o 9 Rule 8 of C. P. C. as well as for non payment of the costs u/s. 35-B of C. P. C. Parties to bear their own costs. File after due completion be consigned to the Records. Sd/-S. J. Barsar"