Bhaichand Ful Chand vs Seth Haji Dawood Ayub

Mullick, J.—The petitioner was defendant in Money Suit No. 84 of 1922 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanabad. On the 4th April, 1922, he obtained time till the 1st May to file his written statement. It is said that, meanwhile, he had gone away to his home in Kathiawar to attend a marriage ceremony and on the 1st of May he failed to appear in Court and his pleader asked for an adjournment on the ground that he was ill. The Court accordingly postponed the case till the 18th May. On that day the petitioner did not appear and an application for adjournment was filed, which was rejected. The petitioner on the 2nd June, 1922 applied for the restoration of the case under Order 9 bat the Subordinate Judge after taking his evidence declined to believe his statement that he was prevented by reason of illness from attending the trial and he dismissed his application. There was then an appeal to the District Judge who has taken the same view and now the present application is made for the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

It is quite clear, that Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, cannot apply. There was no illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The District Judge had jurisdiction to accept the medical certificate filed by the petitioner, or not as he chose. He may have given reasons which seem insufficient, but that is no justification for interfering with his order.

It is said, that the learned Judge was wrong in not accepting the certificate from an unregistered medical practitioner in Kathiawar, as the Act for the registration of medical practitioners is not in force in that part of India. Whether this is correct or not I do not know. In any event, if there was an error on the part of the District Judge, that was not an error of jurisdiction.

The application is dismissed with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.

Bucknill, J.

I agree-