Patna High Court
Ram Narain And Ors. vs Ramdhan Singh And Ors. on 5 February, 1923
Equivalent citations: 72IND. CAS.668, AIR 1924 PATNA 274
JUDGMENT Ross, J.
1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the First Mussif of Patna refusing to restore the petitioners' suit which was dismissed in the absence of both the parties. The ground on which the restoration was sought was that the plaintiff's karpardaz had gone to another, Court to get back some account-books to be filed in the present suit; and, as he failed to get them, he went to get a petition for extension of time written and by the time this was done he found that the case was dismissed. The Munsif thought this story improbable, but is not decisive on the point. He thinks, however, that the karpardaz ought to have looked after the case in the first hour and then ought to have gone to take back the account-books and that there was no jurisdiction for his conduct in not looking after the case till 8 A.M. Now the Munsif, although he did not find that there was sufficient cause for the plaintiff's nonappearance which would have required him to restore the suit, does not appear to have considered, whether this was not a case in which to exercise his inherent powers. That there is such a power in the Court has been repeatedly held. See Bilasirai Laxminarayan v. Cursondas Damodardas 53 Ind. Cas. 252 : 44 B. 82 : 21 Bom. L.R. 952; Somayya v. Subbamma 26 M. 599 and Lalta Prasad v. Ram Karan 14 Ind. Cas. 187 : 34 A. 426 : 9 A.L.J. 666. The power, in my opinion, ought certainly to have been exercised in this case for the simple reason that the claim was a substantial claim and would be barred by limitation, if the suit was not restored. The duty of the Court was to do justice between the parties and as the suit had been dismissed in the absence of both, there was no prejudice to the opposite party if it was restored. I set aside the order of the Munsif and the decree dismissing the suit and restore the. suit for trial. There will be no costs.