RAM CHANDRA SAO Vs. BAL KISHAN SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs -appellants under Order -43 Rule -1 (c) C.P.C. against the order dated 20.9.1977 passed by Sub -Judge -III, Barh, in Misc. Case No. 4/1997.

(3.) DURING the course of the evidence the witnesses of the petitioner -plaintiffs had made some contradictions in their deposition regarding ailment of the Advocate and ailment of the son of the Advocate. Whatever might be the position I think that either the Advocate was ailing or his son was ailing. The Advocate of the plaintiffs was not present at the time and as such pairvi could not be done. It is not being the fact that the plaintiffs came late in the court. Only because of the contradiction of the evidence of the petitioners regarding the ailment of the son of the Advocate or the ailment of the Advocate, the learned court below rejected the petition of the petitioner under Order IX, Rule -IX C.P.C.