TH TEJ SINGH Vs. GOPI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an order of the learned Sub Judge Jammu, dated 30 -8 -1965, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction brought by the plaintiff -applicant for default of his appearance.

(2.) A perusal of the trial court record shows that after the plaintiff -applicant had complied with the courts order dated 13 -3 -1965, the suit was ordered to be put up for arguments on 26 6 -1965. Thereafter a number of adjournments were granted and ultimately on 18 -8 -1965, when the presiding officer was away on special duty, an order was made in his absence by his Reader fixing 30th August 1965 as a next date for arguments. On 30th August 1965, when the suit was called on for hearing neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was present and the suit was dismissed for default.

(3.) IN this revision, it has been urged by Mr. Gupta appearing for the plaintiff -applicant, that the aforesaid order of the learned Sub Judge Jammu, dismissing the suit in default is illegal and cannot be sustained. This contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, is, I think, well founded and must be upheld. It appears from the language in which the order dated 18 8 -1965 is couched that the Reader of the Sub Judge Jammu, adjourned the suit and fixed 30 -8 -1965 as a next date for hearing. It is well established that the clerk of the court has no power to fix a date and the plaintiffs failure to appear on the date so fixed cannot entail dismissal of his suit. Reference in this connection may be made to a "ruling of the Punjab High Court reported in A.I.R 1934 Lahore, 1984, wherein it has been observed as follows: - When a Judge is absent, the clerk of court has no power to fix the date and failure to appear on a date so fixed does not justify dismissal in default."