RAM ADHIN Vs. RAM BHAROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We shall consider in this judgment the facts of Suit No. 83 of 1920. There is a connected revision relating to a decree passed in Suit No. 124 of 1920. To avoid confusion, we shall deal with the decree in the former suit as from the point of view of the respondents to this application, the decree in Suit No. 86 of 1920 is more in their favour.

(2.) This Suit No. 86 of 1920 after various postponements was adjourned on the 23 June, 1921, on the application of the defendant Ramadhin for the production of defence evidence. 3 August, 1921, was the date fixed for hearing and on that date the defendant did not appear in person, nor did any pleader of his appear. He did not put forward any evidence for the defence. The Court thereupon wrote a judgment decreeing the plaintiff's suit for redemption.

(3.) It is argued here on behalf of the respondents that the decree purports to be one passed under Order 17, Rule 3. No order or rule is mentioned in the judgment, but in the order sheet it is mentioned that the decree is passed under Order 17, Rule 3. Subsequently, the defendant, treating this decree as one passed ex-parte under Order 17, Rule 2 applied for re-hearing under Order 9, Rule 13. The Trial Court of the Subordinate Judge decided that the application did not lie and that the defendant ought really to appeal from the decree passed on the merits under Order 17, Rule 3. On appeal to the District Judge, that Court came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal. This is a revision from the order of the District Judge.