TOTARAM Vs. BHIMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the learned District Judge, Alwar, rejecting a petition for review. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Nazim of Kot Kasim in the court of the District Judge, Sawai Jaipur-Gangapur, on 13th April, 1949, and 6th July, 1949, was fixed as the date of hearing. On that date Mr. Jagannath Prasad, District Judge, Sawai Jaipur-Gangapur was on leave and the case was adjourned to 10th October, 1949, by Mr. Rup Singh, District Judge, Jaipur City. Again the same thing happened on the 10th of October, 1949, and 9th January, 1950, was fixed as the date of hearing. On this date the appellant was absent and the appeal was dismissed for default by Mr. Nandlal, who was then working as District Judge, Sawai Jaipur-Gangapur. The petitioner filed a petition for review of that order on 10th April, 1950, on the ground that he had not received any notice of the hearing of appeal and therefore he was not in a position to attend on the 9th of January, 1950. The review petition was rejected on the ground that it was the business of the person, who filed an appeal, to be present on every date of hearing and become conversant with the dates to which the case may be adjourned from time to time.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urges that Shri Rupsingh, who adjourned the case from 6th July, 1949, to 10th Oct. , 1949, and again from 10th October, 1949, to 9th January, 1950, had no jurisdiction and therefore notice should have been issued to the petitioner if he happened to be present on these dates of hearing. He relied on Hukamchand vs. Mani Shibrat Dass and another (1) (A. I. R. 1934 Lahore, 948. ). In that case the case was adjourned by the reader in the absence of the Presiding Judge and the observation is that this adjournment by the reader was not authorised. In the present case, the Jaipur Civil Courts Act, 1944, was in force and sec. 13 thereof makes provision for adjournment of cases when the Presiding Judge of any court happens to be absent. It is mentioned that if no other Judge of an equal, superior or inferior grade is functioning at the head quarters of such Court, or, if functioning, is also absent, the Chief Ministerial Officer of the court shall possess the power of adjourning from time to time, the hearing of any suit or other proceeding, and fix a day for the further hearing thereof. In this case a Judge of equal grade was functioning at the headquarters and under the aforesaid provision of the Civil Courts Act he had power to adjourn the case.