Syed Muhammad Mahmood died in September, 1979: On 25th September; 1979 Syed Khalid Mahmood and his mother Farrukh Sultana claiming themselves to be the son and widow, respectively, of the deceased filed a suit for administration of the property left by him. The sole defendant in the suit was Mat. Bilqis Begum, another widow of Syed Muhammad Mahmood. Mst.
Bilqis Begum contested the suit. She denied that Syed Kbalid Mahmood was .The son of her husban3. She alleged that Farrukh Sultana had been divorced by, her husband about thirty years earlier. She also stated that Syed Muhammad Mahmood had left two more children who were alive and that they ought to have been also made a party to the suit.
2. On 25th May, 1980 the trial Court. Decided to examine the parties in order to question them with regard to he heirs of Syed Muhammad Mahmood. It fixed 17th June, 1980 for that purpose. On that date one of the plaintiffs were present but Mat. Bilqis Begum was absent. The parties were then asked to appear on 26th June, 1980. On the last-motioned date Syed Khalid Mahmood as well as Mst.. Farrukh Sultana's attorney. Were present. On the other hand Mst. Bilqis Begum and her counsel were absent. No explanation was offered why Mst. Bilqis Begum or counsel failed to appear. In the circumstances the learned trial Court decided to invoke the provisions of rule 4 of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in pursuance thereof it passed a preliminary decree fixing the shares of the parties is the estate left by Syed Muhammad Mahmood.
4. From the decision of the learned trial Judge Mst. Bilqis Begum went in appeal before the Additional District Judge but without any success. She has now come in revision before this Court.
3. As stated earlier while passing the preliminary decree the trial Court has invoked the provisions of rule 4 of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule runs as follows :- "(1) Where the pleader of any party who appears by a pleader or any such person accompanying a pleader as is referred to in rule 2, refuses or is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit which the Court is of opinion that the party whom he represents ought to answer, and is likely to be able to answer if interrogated in person, the Court may postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day and direct that such party shall appear in person on such day,
(6) If such party fails without lawful excuse to appear in person on the day so appointed the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit."
A perusal of the rule indicates that where a party absents itself when called upon to appear in person it runs the risk of having the suit decreed against it. It is to be noticed that in the case before me there is no explanation why on the date when the preliminary decree was passed Mst. Bilqis Begum's counsel was absent. Neither before' ;~me nor before the Additional District Judge any medical certificate has been produced showing that on the relevant date she was too sick to attend the Court in person or even to instruct her counsel. In the circumstances 1 do not think that any case for interference in revisional jurisdiction with the discretion exercised by the trial Court has been made out.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court did not possess the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. It is to be noticed that in their plaint the plaintiffs did not indicate any specific value for purpose of jurisdiction. By absenting from Court when called upon to appear in person Alit. Bilqis Begum put herself in a. Position where the suit could be decreed against her without a formal trial.. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel.
6. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in this civil revision which is hereby dismissed with costs.