RAM KISHORE AGARWALLA
Vs. COMMISSIONER OF DHANBAD MUNICIPALITY
LAWS(PAT)-1977-8-18
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on
August 09,1977
RAM KISHORE AGARWALLA
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF DHANBAD MUNICIPALITY
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SRIMATI PREMKANTA KUMARI JAIN V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]RAMJI LAL V. KESHEO RAM [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. JAWAHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
R.KAPINIPATHI RAO V. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DULAREY V. SHIV BEHARI LAL [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PRASAD SINGH V. RAMBARAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TIPAN RAUT V. RAJ KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
D L F HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. SARUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. COLLECTOR J N SINHA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR MIG HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED BALA NAGAR VS. AJIT PRASAD TARWAY [REFERRED TO]
MUMCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. SURESH CHANDRA JAIPURIA [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA VATI VS. DEVI DAS [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. DEWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LALJIT SINGH VS. PYARELAL [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SATYNARAYAN AND OTHERS VS. WAKF BOARD OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1994-6-49] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. -
(1.)This revision application has been filed on behalf of the defendant for setting aside an order dated 14-4-1972 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad restoring the money suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party, which had been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Civil P.C., (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code).
(2.)The money suit in question had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party on 30-10-1968. 3-1-1972 was a date fixed for the hearing in the said suit. On that day, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the plaintiff and it was adjourned to 7-1-1972. On 7-1-1972, none of the parties appeared and no steps were taken either on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, the learned Sub- ordinate Judge dismissed the suit saying that when the suit was called none responded, and, as such, it was being dismissed. On 3-2-1972, plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition labelling it under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code and making a prayer for restoration of the suit in question. On the basis thereof, a miscellaneous case was registered. On that very date, the learned Subordinate Judge directed issuance of notice to the defendant. The case was adjourned to different dates and ultimately on 14-4-1972 the application for restoration was taken up for hearing and the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the plaintiff and considering the materials on the record passed an order restoring the suit to its original file. The defendant-petitioner was not, however, heard before the aforesaid impugned order was passed. According to the petitioner, as notice of the restoration application had not been served on him by that date, he could not be present to oppose the application in question.
(3.)The revision application was listed for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who has referred it to Division Bench for consideration as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case service of notice on the defendant-petitioner was obligatory before the suit in question would have been restored.
(2.)The money suit in question had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party on 30-10-1968. 3-1-1972 was a date fixed for the hearing in the said suit. On that day, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the plaintiff and it was adjourned to 7-1-1972. On 7-1-1972, none of the parties appeared and no steps were taken either on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, the learned Sub- ordinate Judge dismissed the suit saying that when the suit was called none responded, and, as such, it was being dismissed. On 3-2-1972, plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition labelling it under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code and making a prayer for restoration of the suit in question. On the basis thereof, a miscellaneous case was registered. On that very date, the learned Subordinate Judge directed issuance of notice to the defendant. The case was adjourned to different dates and ultimately on 14-4-1972 the application for restoration was taken up for hearing and the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the plaintiff and considering the materials on the record passed an order restoring the suit to its original file. The defendant-petitioner was not, however, heard before the aforesaid impugned order was passed. According to the petitioner, as notice of the restoration application had not been served on him by that date, he could not be present to oppose the application in question.
(3.)The revision application was listed for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who has referred it to Division Bench for consideration as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case service of notice on the defendant-petitioner was obligatory before the suit in question would have been restored.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.