High CourtsDivision Bench(1938) 09 MAD CK 0001

Natesa Ayyar vs Venkalakshmi Ammal and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 September 1938 · Citation: AIR 1940 Mad 53

HON’BLE JUDGES
Burn, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 148 words

Burn, J.—I cannot agree that the omission of the learned Subordinate Judge to give notice to the appellant of the transfer of the appeal from

the District Court was a sufficient cause for him to absent himself when the appeal was heard. He was served with a notice in the appeal and he

omitted to put in an appearance. If he had done so, he would have known that the case had been transferred to the Subordinate Judge. An

applicant under Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C., who admits receipt of notice is obliged like an applicant under Order 9, Rule 13, to show that he

was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. On the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented; he simply chose to

let the appeal be decided ex parte. This appeal is dismissed with costs of respondent 1.