AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having regard to the terms of the order made in the claim proceedings and to the fact that it was not proved that the plaintiff actually received
notice of the claim proceedings, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not a party against whom an order has been made within the meaning of
Section 283, Code of Civil Procedure, and that the order is not conclusive as against him. We do not think the decision of the Full Bench Netietom
Perengaryproin v. Tayanbarry Parameshwaren Nambudri 4 M.H.C.R. 472 precludes us from adopting this view, Moreover it seems doubtful
whether, having regard to the observations made in the judgment of the Privy Council in Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad 15 I.A. 123, this decision
is good law. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have adopted a different view from that taken by the Full Bench in the case referred to
Shivappa v. Dod Nagaya ILR 11 Bom. 114 and Kedar Nath Chatterji v. Rathal Das Chatterji ILR 15 Calc. 674. See, however, Surnamoyi Dasi
v. Ashutosh Goswami ILR 27 Calc. 714.
The second appeal is dismissed with costs.