RAMBABU SHRINARAYAN AGARWAL Vs. GULABSINGH SALJISINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of the order dated 25-4-1945 passed by Mr. S.N. Raina, First Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Nagpur, in Misc. Judicial case No. 86 of 1944. The applicant-plaintiff who is a minor had sued through next friend, mother, the present non-applicant, on a bond. The order sheet dated 28-8-1944 shows that the defendant had filed a written statement alleging that the amount was not due. The plaintiff wanted time for amendment of his plaint. Time was granted, and the case was fixed for 1-5-1944. On that date the suit was called three times at 12-48 P. M. The defendant was present but nobody appeared for the minor plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit and an affidavit was sworn on the same day though it was filed on 3-6-1944.

(2.) IN the application for restoration of the suit as well as the affidavit, the agent of the plaintiff alleged that he was delayed in reaching the Court because the train from Kamptee arrived late. Parties led evidence in the case. Plaintiff examined two witnesses. Ghasilal, the agent of the plaintiff, entered the box and said the train reached the Nagpur station at 12-30 p.m. or even after that. I rushed to the Court and found that the suit was dismissed.

(3.) IN the revision petition it is urged that the plaintiff is a minor and some concession should be shown to him. There is no distinction between a minor plaintiff and any other plain-tiff in so far as Order 9, Civil P.C. is concerned. It is true that some High Courts treat the case of an infant more liberally, the earlier Madras view being that the minority of a plaintiff is a sufficient cause if the next friend or guardian is, found to be negligent.