1. ' The facts of the case are simple. The respondents have filed the suit for recovery of money. The appellant filed written statement on 13-4-2004 and matter was adjourned for framing of issues when the learned Single Judge commenced proceedings under Order X, C.P.C. It seems that notice for appearance of the parties on 3-10-2005 was issued but though the respondent and his counsel appeared adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant by a counsel holding brief for the one representing the appellant. The trial Court nevertheless proceeded to ask certain question from the said counsel holding brief and upon his inability to answer struck off defence of the appellant. Thereafter, the impugned ex parte decree was passed.
2. ' Without going into details it may be sufficient to observe that in the event of inability of a counsel for a party to answer question the matter is required to be adjourned and an opportunity is to be granted to the party to appear in person. Even otherwise the law requires that as far' as may be cases should be decided on merits.
3. ' For the foregoing reasons we are of the view there was no justification for striking off the appellant's defence and would allow the appeal, set aside the impugned decree and require the learned Single Judge to' decide the case in accordance with law. The single Judge may however, continue to follow the procedure under Order X, C.P.C. Which may preferably be decided the suit within 6 months.