(1.) Heard Mr. B.N.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.
(2.) This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the impugned order whereby the court below has dismissed the suit for want of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff on the date when the plaintiff was absent, purporting to exercise the jurisdiction under Order 15, Rule 4 C.P.C.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the provision of Order 15, Rule 4 C.P.C. the court has only two options. The first option as envisaged under the said provision is to pronounce judgment at once option is to frame and record issues, adjourn the suit for producing the witnesses as may be necessary for the decision upon such issues. It has been contended that the learned court below has not acted in the prescribed manner by adopting either of the two options available with it rather it has proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground which has not been envisaged in the said provision or any other provision in the C.P.C. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the issues in the suit were already framed and a pleader commissioner was also appointed for local inspection of the suit property and had also submitted his report which under the law was also an evidence in the suit.