JUDGEMENT
B.LENTIN, J. -
(1.)This Civil Revision Application arises from the order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.
(2.)The petitioner (original plaintiff) had field Summary Suit No. 1308/3357 of 1966 against the opponents (original defendants) in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for recovery of Rs. 2,226/- on a dishonoured Hundi executed by both the opponents. The hearing of that suit was fixed on 4th June, 1970 on which day the suit was dismissed for default of the appearance of the petitioner and his Advocate. Thereupon, the very next day, namely on 5th June, 1970, the petitioner took out a notice, being Notice No. 1139 of 1970, for setting aside the order passed on 4th June, 1970. The hearing of that notice was fixed on 10th September, 1970. When the notice reached hearing on that day, the petitioner was again absent and hence the notice was also dismissed default. Thereupon no the same day, namely 10th September, 1970, the petitioner made an application for restoration of Notice No. 1139/70. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge dismissed the petitioners application for restoration of Notice No. 1139 of 1970 on the ground that the petitioner had been negligent and - indifferent and that he should have informed the Court to keep back the notice till 2.30 p.m.
(3.)In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this application for restoration of Notice No. 1139 of 1970, he has stated in terms that he had two suits in the Bombay City Civil Court on 10th September, 1970 on the Board of his Honour Judge Shimpi, as he then was. He has even given the numbers of those suits and stated that he had gone to the City Civil Court in connection with those matters and that he returned to the Small Cause Court at about 1.00 p.m. and found that his Notice No. 1139 of 1970 had been dismissed for default. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the 1st opponent to the Court of Small Causes, the fact that the petitioner had two suits on the Board of the City Civil Court on 10th September, 1970 is not disputed. However, the opponent No. 1 did not admit that the petitioner - plaintiff was prevented from attending the Court on 10th September, 1970 or the reasons alleged by him. It was contended by the 1st opponent that in any event the petitioners Advocate could have remained present.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.