Skip to content


Gokul Prasad Vs. Sheikh Muzaffar Mian - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in121Ind.Cas.551
AppellantGokul Prasad
RespondentSheikh Muzaffar Mian
Excerpt:
.....be taken.....1. this is a decree-holder's appeal and arises under the following circumstances. the decree-holder, one gokul prasad, got certain properties of the judgment-debtor attached in execution of his decree. the judgment-debtor objected to the attachment on certain grounds. 31st of march, 1923, saturday was fixed for the hearing of the objection. the case was not taken up that day and the decree-holder, having waited till 5 o'clock in the afternoon went away. up to 5 o'clock he had no information when his case was likely to be taken up. the next court day was 2nd of april, 1928, being a monday. on that day, the case was called on. the decree-holder's pleader stated that his client was not there and he asked for an adjournment. the court refused to grant an adjournment and thereupon the pleader.....
Judgment:

1. This is a decree-holder's appeal and arises under the following circumstances. The decree-holder, one Gokul Prasad, got certain properties of the judgment-debtor attached in execution of his decree. The judgment-debtor objected to the attachment on certain grounds. 31st of March, 1923, Saturday Was fixed for the hearing of the objection. The case was not taken up that day and the decree-holder, having waited till 5 o'clock in the afternoon went away. Up to 5 o'clock he had no information when his case was likely to be taken up. The next Court day was 2nd of April, 1928, being a Monday. On that day, the case was called on. The decree-holder's Pleader stated that his client was not there and he asked for an adjournment. The Court refused to grant an adjournment and thereupon the Pleader retired. The judgment-debtor's objections were heard ex parte and were allowed on 12th April, 1928. The decree-holder asked the Court to set aside the ex parte order passed on the 2nd of April, 1928, and to re-hear the case. The next day the learned Judge rejected his application by a short order and this is the order which is complained of.

2. A notice was issued in this Court to the respondent, the judgment debtor, but he has not appeared. It appears to us that the learned Subordinate Judge should not have continued his sitting in Court beyond 4 o'clock without telling the litigant public what was going to be done with the cases which were not likely to be taken up on that day. The utmost limit fixed by this Court for the Subordinate Judge's sitting is 4 o'clock. It is possible that in some circumstances a Subordinate Judge might be justified in continuing beyond 4 o'clock the hearing of the case the hearing of which has already started or he may take up a fresh case, with the consent of parties, but it would be too much to expect that the litigants should wait, to indefinite hours, without being told when their cases are likely to be taken up. In this case we have got the affidavit of the appellant that he waited up to 5 o'clock and he was never told that his case would be taken up the next Court day, Saturdays being the usual days set apart for hearing of 'miscellaneous cases' like the present one, the appellant may very well have thought that his case would be taken up on the next Saturday, being a Court day. In any case there is a good deal of justification in the appellant's complaint that he did not hear even at 5 o'clock in the evening, when his case was likely to be taken up.

3. In the circumstances, we think that the learned Judge should have sets aside his order of 2nd of April, 1928, and sheard the objection of the judgment-debtor, in the presence of the decree-holder. We set aside the order of the 13th of April, 1928, and direct the Court below to take up the objections of the judgment debtor afresh and hear the same in the presence of the decree holder. Costs here and hitherto will abide the result.


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