JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal on behalf of the plaintiff-revisionist and Sri Ram Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Niraj Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for contesting defendant-respondent No. 2.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 pointed out to trial court's order dated 12.2.2002 and appellate order dated 7.9.2002 to show that the plaintiff is not a bona fide litigant and he has been guilty of not pursuing litigation promptly and thereby abusing the process of the Court and harassing the defendant.
3. It may be noted that the present revision arises out of Original Suit No. 400 of 1991 which has been filed for partition. Learned counsel for the revisionist admits that the son of the plaintiff-revisionist is an Advocate. This Court takes Judicial notice of the fact that whenever an Advocate is involved in the litigation, he takes to his head that the Court and judicial process is in his pocket. This cannot be tolerated. I am convinced that the plaintiff is guilty of abusing the process of the Court. The suit relates to the year 1991 but the plaintiff has not carried it bona fide. In view of the above, this Court would have refused to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 115, C.P.C. I am of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 3,1.2003, directing the defendant to lead evidence, once the Court has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff and that he was absent, the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the provision of Order XVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The plaintiff and his counsel being absent and no evidence having been led on behalf of the plaintiff, the court below should have dismissed the suit in default.
4. In view of the fair stand taken by the defendant-respondent before me and the cumulative circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice I quash the judgment and order dated 3.1.2003. The original suit shall be restored to its original number and heard by the court below on the date fixed by the trial court on receiving certified copy of this judgment. The above order is, however, subject to the condition that the plaintiff deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000 before the trial court on the next date fixed by the said Court, as otherwise this order shall have no consequence and the suit shall be treated to be dismissed without further opportunity to the plaintiff to ask for restoration of the same. The aforesaid amount can be withdrawn by the defendant/caveator (applicant). The certified copy of the judgment shall be presented before the trial court within 10 days from today. The caveator/applicant may inform the Court, if possible, today for seeking a short date in the suit.
5. The revision stands disposed of subject to the above observations and directions.