RAGHUNANDAN LOHAR Vs. BACHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of one Raghunandan Lohar whose petition for restoring his application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P.C., has been rejected by the lower Court. A few facts may be mentioned here. The petitioner filed a suit and along with that suit he put in a petition to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. An enquiry was made by the Government through a Deputy Magistrate, who reported that the petitioner was a pauper and had no means to pay the court-fee, but the Court below rejected the application on certain grounds. , Against that order of the Court the petitioner came up in revision before this Court, which was Civil Revision No. 412 of 1938, and the case was sent back on remand to the Munsif to dispose of the matter on merits. The record of the case was received by the Munsif on 11 November 1938, and he fixed 26 November 1938, as the date of hearing. The 26 November 1938 was a Saturday and it was declared to be a holiday. The case was taken up on 28 November 1938, and at the request of the pleader, who appeared in the original case, the case was adjourned and again taken up on 29tb November 1938. On 29 November the pleader, who was formerly engaged by the petitioner, said that he had no instructions, and the petition for leave to sue as a pauper was dismissed for default.

(2.) Thereupon the petitioner filed another petition for restoration of that application, so that it could be disposed of on its merits. That has also been dismissed after examining witnesses in the case. The whole point is whether the Court below was right in dismissing the case on 29 November 1938. The chief point urged before me is that the Court below has acted hastily in the disposal of this matter. If the case was not taken up on the date fixed on account of its being declared a holiday, the Court should have given a reasonable time for the petitioner to appear before the Court. It may be the practice in the Courts below that if a date fixed happens to be a holiday the case is taken up on the next working day, but the Court not having disposed of the matter on 28 November should have given a reasonable time for the petitioner to appear before it.

(3.) From the order sheet it appears that the pleader appeared on 28 November and wanted the case to be taken up on the 29 to give him time to communicate with his client. Babu Sheochand was the pleader engaged by the petitioner, and his signature appears in the margin on the order sheet against the order that was passed on 28 November 1938 and his signature bears the date, 29 November 1938, and it was on that date that the case was disposed of. On this point alone I am inclined to think that the petitioner did not get a reasonable time to prosecute his case before the lower Court.