hospital in which he has taken treatment and subsequent to the dismissal of the suit he had obtained the certificate from the doctor and the doctor states that he was suffering from viral fever (Chikangunya) and issued certificate and the certificate is placed before this Court. It has to be noted that when both the parties have sought for the relief of declaration, the appellant’s suit is dismissed and the respondent’s suit for declaration is continued and ultimately the same was also dismissed and appeal is pending before this Court. The very contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that both R.F.A. and M.F.A. may be considered together and appropriate orders can be passed cannot be accepted, since R.F.A. is based on merits of the suit was dismissed and appeal is pending and this Court as statutory appeal should appreciate both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. But in the case on hand, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, since the appellant did not participate in further evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not complete his further chief evidence. But an observation is made that he was not subjected for cross-examination. Taking note of the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, on the same day an application was filed assigning the reasons for non-appearance before the
