RAMKARAN Vs. RADHAMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, dated the 17th January, 1952.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title to certain movable property in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur, and suit was fixed for hearing before the Additional Civil Judge on 14th March, 1951, on which date the plaintiffs were to lead their evidence. On that date the plaintiffs wanted an adjournment in order to enable them to produce their evidence and 18th April, 1951, was fixed for the purpose. On this date neither the witnesses for the plaintiffs appeared nor the plaintiffs themselves and the following order was recorded by the learned Additional Judge: - "the plaintiff and his Vakil are absent. THE defendant with his lawyer present. THE case was called several times and the court waited till 9-30 A. M. but the plaintiff has remained absent, nor has the plaintiff brought his witnesses or summoned them. He and his lawyer are absent. It is therefore ordered that the suit be dismissed with costs on account of the default of the plaintiff under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. "

(3.) ACCORDING to the view taken by us, the order of the Additional Civil Judge would be deemed to have been passed under Order, 17 rule 2 C. P. C. and an appeal was not competent. As the appeal was incompetent, any order passed in appeal would be without jurisdiction and a nullity.