1. This is a case where rehearing ought to have been permitted. Issues in the case were referred to arbitration. While the arbitration was pending the trial Court ordered that if the award was not received back on a certain date the arbitration would be superseded and proceedings continued by Court. As observed by a Bench of two Judges in Ganesh v. Damodar Das  10 A.L.J. 23, this was an undesirable order. After superseding an award the parties should be given time and opportunity to present themselves in Court and to produce evidence. This was not done in this case. As soon as the arbitration was superseded the Court wanted to proceed with the case. The plaintiff was not present, and the suit was promptly dismissed. He had engaged a counsel, but naturally in the absence of any witnesses the counsel was not in a position to proceed with the case. When it was uncertain whether the suit would be tried on the date fixed for hearing or not it was too much to expect that the plaintiff would go to the expenses of summoning his witnesses and having them ready. It is true that, as usually happens, the plaintiff has told a lie and stated that he was ill on the date of hearing instead of explaining that he was not prepared to undergo expense which may very likely be wasted in having witnesses ready on a date when possibly there may be no hearing. Just as in criminal cases so in civil cases confusion is caused and injustice done by parties firmly believing that only by telling lies redress could be had in Court.
2. I set aside the orders of the two subordinate Courts and direct the trial Court to re-admit the suit at its original number and try it according to law.
3. Costs here and heretofore shall abide the result.