Short Note : 1. Seth Durga Prasad, the non-applicant, had filed a suit for the applicant's eviction from an accommodation let out to him for non-residential purpose. While the suit was pending, the applicant and his counsel were both detained in MISA on 5-7-1975. On 6-9-1975, the applicant's brother moved an application before the Court that either the hearing of the suit be stayed till such time the applicant was released or that the Court should exercise powers under section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 (No. 32 of 1955) and direct the Jail authorities to produce the applicant and his counsel on such hearings their presence was considered necessary. 2. Another application to the same effect was sent by the applicant through Jail on 10-11-1975. The trial Court took no notice of those applications, proceeded exparte against the applicant and passed an exparte decree of eviction on 1-1-1976. 3. Having learnt that an exparte decree had been passed, the applicant moved an application under Order 9, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure from Jail which was forwarded by the Jail authorities and received by the Court on 27-1-1976. The Court filed the application on two counts : (1) That the presentation of the application was not proper. It could be presented by the applicant in person or through a recognized agent and (ii) that the applicant was not bearing Court-fee stamp. 4. The applicant then preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur. The appeal-Court agreed with the trail Court on count No. 1. It, however, held that Court-fee was not payable under section 19 (XVII) of the Court fees Act. 5. The applicant is now before this Court in revision. Held : It cannot be seriously controverted that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. He was detained in prison under MISA and could only be produced in Court upon requisition issued under the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts Act, 1955. The Court declined to issue any order for production of the prisoner in connection with the hearing. 6. The learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the applicant should have engaged a counsel and should have moved the Court for his examination on commission. The Court declined to issue any order for production of the prisoner in connection with the hearing. 6. The learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the applicant should have engaged a counsel and should have moved the Court for his examination on commission. The contention pre-supposes that a litigant is obliged to engage a lawyer and that howsoever he may desire to be present personally to instruct the counsel, he should forego that right because he is in detention. The Court will not be fair to the litigant who is so handicapped. 7. There was in fact, no misconduct or negligence on the part of the applicant in remaining absent and therefore, he has a good case for getting the exparte decree set aside. The learned counsel for the applicant cited two authorities : AIR 1953 Trav. Cochin 304; Veloo Bhargavi v. Varkey Varughese and AIR 1951 MB 107: Biharilal Gyanchand v. Shantilal Raghuverdayal where the lawyer's detention under the Preventive Detention Act was considered a sufficient ground for setting aside the exparte order of dismissal. The present case is on a stronger footing since both the applicant and his counsel were in prison. 8. The only point left for consideration is whether an application forwarded through channel of the Jail authorities could be treated as proper presentation. Order 3, rule 1, CPC requires the presentation to be done either in person or through recognised agent or by pleader except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that where a party was in prison, presentation by him in person was not possible unless the Jail authorities agreed to produce him before the Court. He could therefore, forward his representation application or petition only through the channel prescribed. The rules framed under section 59 (XXIV) of the Prisons Act regulated the transmission of appeal and petitions from prisoners and their communications with their friends. The Jail Manual Vol. 1 in paras 759 and 760 prescribe the mode. The prisoner has to be furnished with writing material and if he cannot write himself the jailor is supposed to write everything requisite for him. The prisoner then presents his appeal/application/petition either to the Superintendent or to the Court by the hands of a pleader. An application forwarded by the Superintendent thus is a proper presentation to the Court. The prisoner has to be furnished with writing material and if he cannot write himself the jailor is supposed to write everything requisite for him. The prisoner then presents his appeal/application/petition either to the Superintendent or to the Court by the hands of a pleader. An application forwarded by the Superintendent thus is a proper presentation to the Court. The Rules, as I construe them, apply equally to civil matters though essentially framed for criminal proceedings. 9. My attention was also drawn to the Madhya Pradesh Detention Order, 1971. Under section 14, correspondence of a detenue has to pass through censorship and through him to the addressee. That being so, the presentation of the application could only be made through the Jail authorities. 10. In the result, I accept the revision, set aside the exparte decree and order trial of the suit on merits. I hope that the trial shall be expedited and completed within four months.