- (1.)This appeal under S. 96 of the C.P.C. 1908 has been filed against the judgment and decree dt. March 2, 1984 of the District Judge, Bikaner by the defendant 1 -appellant Smt. Krishna Devi.
(2.)Plaintiff-respondent 1 instituted a suit against the defendant 1 Smt. Krishna Devi and defendant-respondent 2 Bank of Baroda, Branch, near Railway Station, Bikaner praying that a sum of Rs. 71,000/- deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipts with the Bank of Baroda be got realised by him though the Fixed Deposit Receipts stood in the names of the plaintiff, his son Pawan Kumar (deceased) and defendant 1 Smt. Krishna Devi (widow of Pawan Kumar). It was averred by the plaintiff that defendant 1 had no title and interest in the amounts of the Fixed Deposit Receipts and hence she is not entitled to get the amount of Rs.71,000/- and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 2,000/- and also subsequent interest. Summons was issued to defendant 1 in the prescribed form under O. V,Rr.1 and 5 C.P.C. It was inter alia, stated in the summons that was issued to defendant 1 for the hearing of Oct. 20, 1983 as follows : Summons was refused by her and therefore it was affixed at her residence. Nobody appeared on her behalf on Oct. 20, 1983. The trial Court ordered that one summons may be sent by registered post acknowledgement due. Thereafter, on Nov. 17, 1983, appearance was put in on behalf of defendant No. 1 and an adjournment was sought for filing the written statement. On Jan. 6, 1984, Feb. 8, 1984 and Feb. 20, 1984, adjournments for filing written statements were sought and they were granted. It will be relevant here to quote the material part of the order-sheet dt. Feb. 20, 1984 which relates to the grant of adjournment for filing written statement on certain conditions: The date fixed for the filing of the written statement was March 1, 1984, March 1, 1984 was a Gazetted holiday on account of Mahashivratri. The case was taken up on March 2, 1984. On that date, learned counsel for the defendant 1 again sought time for filing the written statement, which was opposed by the plaintiff's counsel. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties did not consider it proper to grant any more opportunity to defendant 1 in the interest of justice. After hearing the parties, he pronounced the judgment and passed the decree under O. VIII, R. 10 C.P.C. on March 2, 1984.
(3.)Being dissatisfied, defendant 1 has filed this appeal as aforesaid.