Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 36 (MP)

Isharsingh v. Kallu

1979-01-22

S.R.VYAS

body1979
Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant has filed a suit of a small cause nature in the Court of the Civil Judge Class I Neemah empowered under section 9 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act for the realisation of Rs.380 on the basis of a pronote allegedly executed by the non-applicant. defendant. The suit was dismissed for default on 19-2-1973 but it was restored as per order passed in Small Cause Misc. Case No.9 of 1973. It was then fixed for evidence of both the parties on 25-6-1973 but on this date the non-applicant remained absent and the suit was heard and decided against the defendant on the same day. On 7-10-1974 the defendant submitted an application for the setting aside of the decree which was allowed by the impugned order. Held: The order sheet dated 10-4-1974 shows that as per order passed in Small Cause Misc. Case, the plaintiff's suit was restored to file and in the presence of the counsel for both the parties, it was fixed for final hearing on 25-6-1974. The defendant's counsel submitted an affidavit in the trial Court that he was not given any intimation about the case being fixed for final hearing on 25-6-1974 and it was only on 7-10-1974 that he learnt about the suit being heard and decided exparte-against the defendant. The learned trial Judge has accepted the affidavit of the defendant's counsel and treating it as a sufficient cause set aside the exparte decree. In the order sheet dated 10-4-1974 the date 25-6-1974 is over written. Initially 'it was 28-6-1974 and then figure 28 was over written as 25. In the margin some initials, which according to the applicant's learned counsel were of the defendant's counsel have been erased by ink. If the applicant's contention was that the defendant's counsel. Shri Garg has taken notice of the suit being fixed for hearing on 25-6-1974, then he should have been examined but this was not done. In any case when the trial Court finds the cause to be sufficient and deems it proper to set aside the decree on facts, there will be no question of law involved for decision by this Court. In the aforesaid circumstance, filed no substance to interfere with the aforesaid order. Revision dismissed.