Skip to content


Radhey Shiam Vs. R.C. Bhattiya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945All53
AppellantRadhey Shiam
RespondentR.C. Bhattiya
Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........utarsi is at a distance of six miles from rainwala. notice of this change in the programme of the learned assistant collector was not given to the plaintiffs, but according to some practice prevailing in the revenue courts this change of programme was notified to the bar association and the mukhtars' association. notice of the change of programme was also hung up on the notice board. the plaintiffs not having received any information of the change of programme wont on 14th december with their pleaders to rainwala. when they reached there, they were told that the learned assistant collector was sitting at utarsi. they then rushed to the latter place and there being no proper conveyance they had to go on foot or by bullock cart. when they reached utarsi, they were informed that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Malik, J.

1. These two revisions arise out of two suits filed by cosharers for profits pertaining to their share. The cases were triable by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Bareilly. I am informed that the headquarters of the Assistant Collector is at Baherhi, but he fixed these cases for hearing on 14th December 1940 at his camp at Rainwala. It does not appear how or when he changed his programme and decided that he would hear these cases at Utarsi. Rainwala is at a distance of seven miles from Baherhi and Utarsi is at a distance of six miles from Rainwala. Notice of this change in the programme of the learned Assistant Collector was not given to the plaintiffs, but according to some practice prevailing in the revenue Courts this change of programme was notified to the Bar Association and the Mukhtars' Association. Notice of the change of programme was also hung up on the notice board. The plaintiffs not having received any information of the change of programme wont on 14th December with their pleaders to Rainwala. When they reached there, they were told that the learned Assistant Collector was sitting at Utarsi. They then rushed to the latter place and there being no proper conveyance they had to go on foot or by bullock cart. When they reached Utarsi, they were informed that the learned Assistant Collector had already dismissed the cases for default of appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. Applications for restoration were filed, I am informed, on the same date. The learned Assistant Collector, however, thought that there was no sufficient ground for restoration and rejected the applications. There were appeals filed before the learned District Judge, Mr. Plowden, who called for a report from the learned Assistant Collector as to how the change of programme was notified, and the learned Assistant Collector on 17th December 1941 submitted his report that the change of programme was notified in the manner as stated by me above. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeals on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for interference. It is against that order that these revisions have been filed.

2. There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for service of notice by sending such general notices to the Bar Associations and there is no law under which such notices can be deemed to be sufficient. I am informed that this is the general practice in the revenue Courts. All that I can say is that if this is the practice, it is very unsatisfactory. The practice of hearing cases in camps at a distance from the headquarters causes great hardship to litigants and they have to pay additional fee to the lawyers. The cases are not heard in a proper atmosphere, nor can there be any library at hand. However, if cases have to be heard in camps, to my mind, a party when he has received notice that his case is to be heard at a particular place, should be informed if there is to be any change of either the date or the place of hearing. In any case from the fact that the plaintiffs went to Rainwala on the date fixed and then went to Utarsi with their pleaders it cannot be said that they had knowledge of the date and deliberately absented themselves. I think it was a fit case where the order of dismissal for default should have been set aside and the cases heard on the merits.

3. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has pointed out that on the date of hearing before the learned District Judge the appellants' pleader did not appear. The learned District Judge, however, decided the cases on the merits and not for default. If he had dismissed the cases for default the question might have arisen as to why the pleader was not present in Court and he might have been able to give some cogent reason for his absence. In view, however, of the fact that if the pleader had appeared in Court, the learned District Judge may not have dismissed the appeal, I think it is a fit case where parties should bear their own costs. I, therefore, allow these revisions, set aside the orders for dismissal for default and send the cases back to the trial Court for hearing on the merits. I make no order as to the costs of these revisions.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //