BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order dated September 21, 1949 made by S. R. Das Gupta J., dismissing a suit for want of -prosecution. The suit was commenced on or about June 27, 1945 and was for dissolution of partnership and accounts.
(2.) AFTER the institution of the suit the plaintiff made an application for the appointment of a receiver and on November 23, 1945 a receiver was appointed. The written statement was filed on or about August 13, 1945. The defendant denies that there was any partnership. The suit appeared in the Prospective List and in the Peremptory List of suits for hearing from time to time. It appeared for the last time on August 12, 1947 in the Peremptory List of suits for hearing and then it went out of the list. It was placed on the Special List under Ch. 10 of the Rules of our Court for disposal. The plaintiff showed cause and in showing cause used an affidavit affirmed by him on September 20, 1949. In the affidavit the plaintiff said that he as well as the defendant came from the Punjab and: 'in order to accommodate the defendant who was in difficulties since August 19, 1947 and who lives in the Punjab and by reason of the fact that talks of settlement were going on between the defendant and myself I asked my attorney not to place the suit in the list for hearing so long.' He further said that there was every chance of the suit being settled and accordingly he asked his attorney not to incur costs by placing the suit on the list. There was no affidavit in opposition used on this occasion. The learned Judge dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. It is from this dismissal that this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has argued first that the learned Judge acted illegally and without jurisdiction in striking out the suit on September 21, 1949. He said that the Government of India had declared September 19, 20, and 21 as public holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act; therefore the High Court should be deemed to have been closed on September 20 and accordingly the order passed by S. R. Das Gupta J. was a nullity. There is no doubt that those days were declared to be holidays by the Central Government. But that does not necessarily mean that our High Court was closed on those days. Counsel in aid of his argument referred to two cases - one a decision of the high Court and another a decision of the Madras Court. But neither of these decisions relates to any Chartered High Court. They were appeals from Mofussil Civil Courts and govern Ordinary Civil Courts and not Chartered High Courts. So far as we are concerned the Rules of our Court govern us. Those Rules are to be found in Ch. 3 of our Rules which is headed; 'Holidays of Courts, Vacations, Holidays'. The relevant Rules are these: '1. A Court for the exercise of the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court on its several sides may be held before one or more Judges of the High Court. 2. The vacations to be observed in the several Courts and offices of the High Court on its Original Side shall be three in every year, viz., the Easter, the Long and the Christmas vacations, and shall begin and end on such days 'as the Chief Justice may direct.' * * * * *3. Unless otherwise specially ordered by the Chief Justice, the Courts and offices shall be open on every day of the year except on Sundays and the following holidays and vacations: Mohuram Sri Panchami Fateha Doaz Daham Dole Jatra Chaitr Mahabishuba Sankranti Dasahara Birthday of His Majesty the King - Emperor Janmashtomi Eed -ul -Fitr Eed -uz -Zoha. And during the Easter, Long and Christmas Vacations (provision being made for urgent business).' ;