BHUPENDRA PRASAD Vs. MOSSAMMAT TABIZUN NISSA
LAWS(PAT)-1979-4-21
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on April 02,1979

BHUPENDRA PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
MOSSAMMAT TABIZUN NISSA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHASHIBHUSHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS V. DWARKA PRASAD MARWARI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CHAMAK LAL MANDAL V. MAUJL MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
TEK CHAND NENOOMAL V. KALUSING MANJUSING AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
L.MAHADEV V. A.K.ANANTHA KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Hari Lal Agrawal, J. - (1.)Both these revision applications are by the plaintiffs of a title suit pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Saharsa, and are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.)The principal question that arises for decision by this court in these applications is as to whether on the failure of petitioners to produce further evidence on a date fixed for hearing in the suit, the trial court should have proceeded under the provisions of Order 17, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or should have taken recourse to Rule 3 thereof.
(3.)The facts necessary to appreciate this question, briefly stated are these : The petitioners instituted the title suite in question for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain properties from defendants first party, described in Schedule I, and for confirmation of possession of Schedule II properties. On 20.7.1978, a date fixed for hearing in the suit, the petitioners applied for time on the ground of illness of petitioner no. 3, who was the main person looking after the suit, as on that account the petitioners could not arrange for further evidence. But the prayer was rejected and the suit was taken up. On that day the petitioners examined only two witnesses who were quite formal in nature, being pleaders clerks, who proved the vakalatnama and the endorsement thereon, and the case was adjourned to 22.7.1978 on that day the petitioners renewed their prayer for time. The trial court, however, declined adjournment and the petitioners, therefore, examined yet another again a most formal witness. The suit was then adjourned to 24.7.1978 (23.7.1978 being a Sunday). On this day no step whatsoever was taken on behalf of the petitioners-perhaps, under the impression that no useful purpose would be served by even making an application for adjournment on account of the above attitude of the trial court The court below, however closed the case of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to begin their case, who examined one witness on that day and he was discharged after his evidence-in-chief. The suit was then adjourned to the next day. On that day also the defendants examined only one witness. The suit was then adjourned to 26.7.78. On this day also one witness was examined by the defendants.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.