Hirdey Nath Kapoor, J. - (1.) This is defendants application in revision against the order of the Civil Judge, Etah dated 27 -4 -1968 confirming the order passed by the Munsif, Etah, dated 7 -4 -1967, refusing to set aside a decree dated 25 -5 -1966 under the provisions of O. IX R. 13 CPC. This revision application came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court who was of opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kishore v/s. Distt. Cooperative Development Federation (1965 ALJ 575) required reconsideration. He accordingly referred the case to a Division Bench. Plaintiff opposite party filed a suit before the Munsif Etah which was fixed for final hearing on 10 -5 -1966. On that date the defendant moved an application for adjournment of the case. The prayer for adjournment was not opposed by the plaintiff. The court adjourned the case to 25 -5 -1966 and made the following order: - - Defendant's application for adjournment on the ground that due to illness he could not get the witnesses summoned, Opposite party has no objection except for cost. Ground sufficient. Prayer is allowed on payment of Rs. 15/ - as costs. Fix 25 -5 -1966 for final hearing. No further adjournment shall in any case be allowed.
(2.) It appears, that on 25 -5 -1966 the case was called out for hearing some time before 9 -30 a.m. Counsel for both the parties appeared before the Court. Counsel for the defendant informed the court that the defendant was not present and made a request that the case may be taken up after 10 a.m. as the train by which the defendant was expected to arrive reached Etah at about 9 -30 a.m. The court accepted the request made by the learned counsel and directed that the case be recalled after 10 a.m.
(3.) The case was recalled at 11.05 a.m. At that time the counsel for the plaintiff appeared but no one appeared on the side of the defendant. The court thereupon passed the following order: - - It is already 11.05 a.m. It is an adjourned hearing of the case to -day. The case was adjourned last on 10 -5 -1966 on defendant's own application. There is sufficient material on the record to decide the case on merits. It is therefore a fit case to be decided on merits u/O. XVII R. 3 CPC. ORDER The suit shall be heard and decided on merits u/O. XVII, R. 3 CPC.;