LAHAR KANWAR Vs. DEVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner Udaipur dated 1. 9. 59 whereby he, accepting an appeal in a case under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the order of the Assistant Collector Rajsamand dated 31. 12. 57,ordered the case to be remanded for letting the opposite party have an opportunity of producing his evidence.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record also. The facts of the case are not at all material for the decision of the present appeal and so they are not reproduced here. Suffice it would be to say that on the closing of the evidence of the plaintiff-appellant on 6. 12. 57, the case was adjourned in due course and according to the procedure prescribed for the recording of the evidence of the defendant-respondents to 21. 12. 57. On 21. 12. 57 the counsel for the parties were present. But the learned counsel for the defendant respondents pleaded no instructions and so the learned Assistant Collector ordered the closure of their evidence and adjourned the case for hearing the arguments to 31. 12. 57. On 31. 12. 57, he decreed the suit under O. 17 R. 3 C. P. C. An appeal was preferred against the order to the learned Commissioner Udaipur, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the learned Assistant Collector was not justified in decreeing the suit under O. 17 R. 3 CPC. The learned Commissioner, without deciding whether the decree bad been rightly passed under O. 17 R. 3 CPC. or not, allowed the appeal and remanded the case for letting the defendant respondents have a further opportunity of producing their evidence. The observations of the learned Commissioner are that it was clear from the order dated 6. 12. 57 that the defendant-respondents had been directed by the court to produce their evidence on that date; and that it was possible that there had been some mis-under-standing and the defendant-respondents, had therefore, failed to produce their evidence. It was further observed that in any case the learned trial court should have, for the sake of justice allowed the defendant-respondents another opportunity to produce their evidence, and should not have closed the evidence all of a sudden on 21. 12. 57. No costs were allowed to the plaintiff-appellant.