HABIB ULLA SODAGAR Vs. NUR MOHD BABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred under Sec. 115 of the Civil P. C. against an order passed by the City Judge at Srinagar under O. 9 r. 4 of the Civil P. C. setting aside the dismissal of a suit for default.

(2.) THE suit was for pre -empting a sale. The present petitioner was the vendee -defendant. The plaintiff had adduced his evidence in respect of certain issues in the suit and the suit was posted to 3 -9 -60 for die evidence of the defendant -petitioner on those issues. On that day, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appeared and die s was dismissed by the trial court under O. 9 r.3. The plaintiff preferred an, application under O. 9 R. 4 on 29 -10 -60 and also led evidence on his side to satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for his non -appearance on 3 -9 -60. The court was satisfied with the sufficiency of the cause for non -appearance of the plaintiff and allowed his application, and appointed a date for proceeding with the suit. This order is challenged by the defendant -petitioner in the presents revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner defendant has devoted part of his argument to showing that there was no evidence at all to justify the order of the lower court. I am wholly unable to agree with this contention. A senior Advocate of this court was one of the witnesses who gave evidence on the side of the plaintiff in the court below at the hearing of the application under O. 9 R. 4. His evidence is quite adequate to support the order of the court below. It is perhaps unnecessary to go into the rest of the supporting evidence placed before the court by the appellant -plaintiff.