KALYAN Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this revision application are these. Issues were framed on 5. 4. 62 and the plaintiff closed his evidence on 6. 9. 63. THE case was adjourned to 19. 12. 63 for recording the evidence of the defendant. Before that date the defendant filed an application on 17. 11. 63 summoning the account books of the plaintiff from him. 10th January 1964 was fixed for arguments on this application. On that date the defendant withdrew his application and 12. 2. 64 was fixed for recording his evidence. On that date the court had no time and it adjourned the case to 12. 5. 64. On the adjourned date the defendant was absent and his lawyer pleaded no instructions. THE court closed the evidence of the defendant and fixed 25-564 for arguments. On 25. 5. 64 the suit was decreed against the defendant after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff. THE defendant did not appear even on 25. 5. 64.

(3.) IN interpreting order 17 rule 2 also the wordings used by the Legislature should in my opinion be given full effect. These wordings are sufficiently wide to enable the court to decide the case on merits. If a suit is decided on merits under O. 17, rule 2 then the remedy of the aggrieved party is by way of an appeal under sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no application under order 9, rule 13 is maintainable.