လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်း[ sufficient cause ][ Part Five ]

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်း[ sufficient cause ][ Part Five ]

———————————————————————

- ရှေ့ဘတ်စာရေးကရက်ချိန်းမှားပေးခြင်းသည်လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်းဖြစ်သည်-

A. I. R. 1924 Rangoon 271 ( 272 )

HEALD, J.

Wazir Chand-Petitioner 

                  v.

B. M. Bharadwaza-Respondent.

Civil Revn. No. 124 of 1923, decided on 7th February, 1924, against the order of the Judge, Rangoon Small Cause Court, in C. R. No. 7794 of 1922.

အမှု၌၊တရားသူကြီး HEALD ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[ Civ. Pro. Code, O. 9, R. 13-Wrong date given by Bench Clerk-Ex parte decree passed -Application to set aside decree should be allowed.

Where the Bench Clerk gave a wrong date to the petitioner (defendant) on which the case was alleged as fixed for hearing and an ex parte decree was passed in the meantime.

Held: that the ex parte decree should be set aside. ]

———————————————————

A. I. R. 1927 Rangoon 46 ( 48 )

RUTLEDGE, C.J., AND CARR, J.

Maung Pway and another-Appellants.

                   V.

Saya Pe-Respondent.

Civil Revision No. 28 of 1925, Decided on 3rd August 1926, against the decision of the District Judge., Magwe.

Equivalent Citation = VOL IV INDIAN LAW REPORTS. RANGOON SERIES. 408 ( 411 )

အမှုတွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းထုံးဖွဲ့သည်-

[ (a) Civil P. C., O.17 Pr. 2 and 3-Suit dismissed on plaintiff's pleader stating that plaintiff's absence was due to having mistaken date of hearing-Dismissal is under R. 2.

On the date of adjourned hearing the Court's order was: 

"Case called ; 

U Thu Daw for plaintiff present. 

Plaintiff and his witnesses are absent. 

Aiyar, for second defendant, present. 

First defendant with Maung Tun Hla present. 

U Thu Daw for plaintifi states that his client has mistaken the date of hearing most probably.

His witnesses are also absent. 

Judgment passed."

Held: that the dismissal was under R. R.2 and not R. 3: 34 Cal. 403, (F.B.) Foll. [P 47 C 1]

(b) Civil P. C., 0.5, R. 1 2) 6)-Pleader present but only instructed to apply for adjournment-There is no appearance within the Code-Civil P.C., O. 10, R. 4; O. 17, R. 2; O. 9, R.9, and 0.3. R. 1.

To make the attendance of a pleader to amount to a representation of the plaintifi the Code contemplates that the pleader should be duly instructed and be able to answer all material questions relating to the suit. 

An application by a pleader, who is instructed only to apply for an adjournment, which is refused, is not an appearance within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure: 34 Cal. 403 (F.B.) Foll. 

His instructions must be presumed to have been limited to that specific purpose. (P 47 C 2, P 48 C 1) ]

——————————————————

- တရားလို၏ကိုယ်စားလှယ်သည်အမှုအချို့တွင်ဆောင်ရွက်ပြီး၊နောက်ထပ်အမှုမရှိဟုသဘောရိုးဖြင့်ယုံကြည်ပြီးရုံးမှထွက်ခွါသွားခြင်းသည်လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်းဖြစ်သည်-

A. I. R. 1929 Rangoon 224

MAUNG BA. J

S. K. S. Krishnappa Chettyar-Plaintiff—Applicant.

                              V.

Jhanda and another-Defendants

Civil Revu. No. 138 of 1929, Decided on 25th June 1929.

အမှု၌၊တရားသူကြီးဦးဘကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[ (a) Civil P. C., O. 9, R. 9-"Sufficient cause.”

Where a party's agent attended Court and after disposing of some work went away under a bona fide belief that be had no more cases in the Court and where his suit was dismissed for non-appearance, such bona hide mistake would amount to "sufficient cause”. [P 224 C 2]

(b)Civil P. C., O. 9, R. 9-Person alleging false cause for non-appearance-Court can refuse to restore his suit.

If a person alleges a cause for his non-appearance which is false, the Court is justified in refusing to restore his suit for a person cannot expect to obtain justice on perjury. [P 224 C 2]

——————————————————

- မိနစ်အနည်းငယ်နောက်ကျသွား၍နောက်ဆုံးရထားမမီလိုက်ခြင်းသည်လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်းဖြစ်သည်-

A. I. R. 1936 Rangoon 204 ( 206 )

BAGULEY AND MOSELY, JJ.

K. S. R. M. Chettyar Firm - Appellant.

                         V.

Prem Singh Bindra and others- Respondents.

Misc. Appeal No. 123 of 1935, Decided on 19th February 1936, from order of Dist. Court, Shwebo, D/- 23rd August 1935.

အမှု၌အောက်ပါအတိုင်းထုံးဖွဲ့သည်-

[ Civil P. C. (1908), O. 9, R. 8-Suit dismissed under O. 9, R. 8-Plaintiff unable fo attend Court on due date by reason of missing last available train by few minutes-Court should consider whether plaintiff honestly intended to be in Court and did his best to get there in time-It so satisfied, it should set aside order of dismissal.

Where a suit has been dismissed in default under O. 9. R. 8 on account of the tailure of  the representative alleges that he was unable to appear on the due date by reason of his missing the last train available by a few minutes, the question to be considered by the Court, is whether the representative honestly intended to be in Court, and did his best to get there in time.

Once the Court is satistied that the man did try to get there, and that he would have been there but tor the fact of having missed his train by a few minutes, it is the duty of the Court to set aside the order of dismissal after directing him to pay costs to the other party: 1923 Mad 63, Foll. [P 205 C 2 ; P 206 01]

————————————————

- အမှုကြားနာစစ်ဆေးရန်ချိန်းဆိုသောနေ့မဟုတ်ဘဲအမှုကိုပလပ်ခြင်းသည်လုံလောက်သောအကြောင်းဖြစ်သည်-

A. I. R. 1930 Calcutta 251 (1)

B. B. GHOSE AND PANTON, JJ.

Rajabala Dasi-Appellant.

                 V.

Jai Chand Lal Babu and others- Respondents.

Appeal No. 316 of 1927, Decided on 18th February 1929, against original order of Sub-Judge, Burd wan, D/ 25th July 1927.

အမှု၌အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

[ Civil P. C.. O. 17, R. 3-Decree-Ex parte decree-Legality of -- Defendant's prayer for adjournment refused but time given to pro duce witnessss — Plaintiff's evidence recorded and without waiting up'o day fixed for defendant's witnesses ex parte decree passed —Decree held to be illegal.

On the date fixed for the hearing of the case the plaintifi was ready but the defendant prayed for time and produced a medical certificate in support of the aliegation that he was ill.

The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the defendant was guilty of repeated laches on various grounds and rejected the defendant's petition but at the same time allowed five days' time to the detendant to produce his witnesses.

The plaintiff’s evidence was taken on that very day. 

Instead, however, of waiting for five days in order to enable the defendant to produce his witnesses as directed by him, the Subordinate Judge made an ex parte decree on that very day. 

Defendant appealed.

Held: that the trial Court was not justified in passing an ex parte decree. [P 251 C 1.]

——————————————————————