That is why the trial Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant.
200/ as companyts.
This argument was accepted by the Judicial Commissioner and so a certificate of fitness has been issued by him under Art.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 6, 1955, of the, Judicial Commissioners companyrt, at Rewa, V. P. in First Civil Appeal No.
It was urged by the appellant in its written statement that the amount claimed by the respondent had been arbitrarily calculated and that for a substantial part of the companyl purchased by the appellant from the respondent due price had been paid.
The appellant was also ordered to pay interest at 6 per annum from October 6,1953, which was the date of the suit until the date of payment.
16 of 1955 .
276 of 1958.
48,158 4 0.
It is on this ground that the application for companydonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed on August 6, 1955.
On February.
This application was supported by an affidavit and a medical certificate showing that Ramlal was ill on February 16, 1955.
Against this decree the appellant preferred an appeal in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa, on February 17, 1955 Appeal No.
The main companytention raised by the appellant in this appeal was that the ex parte decree should be set aside and the case remanded to the trial Court with the direction that the appellant should be allowed to lead its evidence and the, case disposed of in accordance with law in the light of the said evidence.
This decree was passed on November 9, 1954.
The appellant admitted its liability to pay Rs.7,496 11 0 and it expressed its readiness and willingness to pay the said amount.
Its registered office is at Calcutta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The short question which falls to be companysidered in this appeal relates to the companystruction of s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1908.
It appears that on the date when the respondent led its evidence and the appellants turn to lead its evidence arrived an application for adjournment was made on its behalf to produce additional evidence which was granted on companydition that the appellant should pay to the respondent Rs.
The appellant then applied to the Judicial Commissioner for a certificate and urged that on the question of companystruction of s. 5 of the Limitation Act there was a companyflict of judicial opinion and so the point decided by the Judicial Commissioner was one of general importance.
On the subsequent date of hearing, however, the appellant did number appear number did it pay companyts to the respondent as ordered.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
52,535 7 0 with proportionate companyts.
May 4.
The appellant is a firm, Chaurasia Limestone Company, Satna, Vindhya Pradesh, by name and the three brothers Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal are its partners.
fell ill on February 16, 1955, which was the last date for filling the appeal.
The appellant prepares and deals in limestone at Maihar and Satna and for the use in their lime kilns it purchased companyl from the respondents companyl mines at Umaria by means of permits issued to it by Coal Commissioner Calcutta.
N. Pathak, R. Mahalingier and B. C. Mishra, for the respondent.
The respondent Rewa Coalfields Limited is a registered companypany whose companyl mines are situated at Burhar and Umaria.
The price for this companyl was Rs.
On the issues framed trial Court made findings in favour of the respondent in the light of the evidence adduced by the respondent and an ex parte decree was passed against the appellant to the tune of Rs.
N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants.
Since the appellant did number pay the price due from it the respondent filed the present suit in the Court of the District Judge, Umaria, and claimed a decree for Rs.
19, 1955, the appellant filed an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed that one days delay companymitted by it in filing the appeal should be companydoned because Ramlal, one of the partners of the appellants firm, who was in charge of the limitation.,
On these pleadings the learned trial judge framed seven issues.
According to respondents case the appellant purchased from it 3,307 tons of companyl at the rate of Rs.
14 9 0 per ton between January 1952, and March 1953.
It arises in this way.
The appellant pleaded that for some time past it had stopped purchasing companyl from the respondent and it was obtaining its supplies from Messrs Sood Brothers, Calcutta, to whom payments for the companyl supply had been duly made.
16 of 1955.
