BHUJANGRAO Vs. BALIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Bhujang Rao, who applies for revision, filed a suit in the Small Cause Court of Ellichpur on two promissory-notes against one Baliram Thakore. On the day fixed for the final disposal of the suit, the plaintiff ?appeared (by pleader) and the defendant put in no appearance at all. The plaintiff bad no witnesses present, and the learned Judge gave the following judgment: The point for decision is whether the two pro-notes in suit are genuine. I find them not proved and dismiss the suit for want of evidence.

(2.) THE plaintiff's application in this Court; states the following facts, which would probably not justify revision : When the. Case was called at 12-47 P.M. the plaintiff's pleader informed the Court that he had not turned up and asked for a postponement of the hearing till later in the day, which was refused; the plaintiff and his witnesses, who had been delated on their journey, did in fact turn up within half an hour of the hearing. An application for the restoration of the suit was drawn up the same day, but it was seen that that could not be granted as there had been a decision on the merits not a dismissal in default.

(3.) IT is certainly the usual practice, arising out of a vague general memory of this rule, for the Court in all exparte oases to call upon the plaintiff to "prove his case." Such an order is usually taken to m an that the plaintiff has to give evidence of some of the admitted facts. The facts to be so proved are never stated and nowhere defined, though they are generally taken vaguely to include the execution of any document on which the suit is based or the payment; of the consideration for the agreement in question or of something of that sort.