High CourtsDivision Bench(1927) 07 PAT CK 0007

Ram Mandar vs Mahdoo Lal Chowdhry

Patna High Court · Decided on 15 July 1927 · Citation: AIR 1927 Patna 369

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ross, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 189 words

Ross, J.—This suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 3, The plaintiff applied under Order 9, Rule 4, to have the suit restored. The learned Munsif directed that; the pleaders should be informed; bud there is nothing in the order sheet to show that they were informed or that the petitioner had any notice of the application under order 9, Rule 4. The plaintiff is required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non appearance but, so far from doing that, the learned Munsif has found that there was negligence on his part but, acting u/s 151, he restored the suit. Now, when there is a specific rule in the code for the restoration of a suit, the learned Munsif was not entitled to have recourse to Section 151 and on his own finding, the order o� restoration should not have been made under the rule which directly applied to the case.

2.

The application must, therefore, be allowed and the order of the learned Munsif restoring the suit set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this application. Hearing-fee: one gold mohur.