High CourtsDivision Bench(1927) 10 MAD CK 0009

Pattanna vs Neeli Chetty Ramiah Chetty and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 October 1927 · Citation: AIR 1927 Mad 1197 : (1928) ILR (Mad) 597 : 108 Ind. Cas. 297 : (1928) 27 LW 361

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devadoss, J

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

9 paragraphs · 231 words

Devadoss, J.—This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tiruvallur refusing to set aside the order declaring defendant

2 ex parte in a pending suit. Defendant 2 appeared and filed a written statement and afterwards did not appear and he was declared ex parte.

Considerable time afterwards he appeared and wanted the ex-parte order to ,be set aside. The District Munsif refused to set aside the order

making him ex parte as it was passed so far back as 22nd August 1925. When a person once files a written statement and then absents himself

and in consequence is made ex parte, if ha afterwards appears and wants to fight the suit, he should be allowed to come in at the stage at which the

suit is. He should not be shut out altogether on the ground that he was once placed ex parte. This point was decided by my brother Wallace, J., so

far back as 27th July 1925. The case is reported in Venkatasubbiah v. Lakahsminarasimham A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 1274 It does not appear that this

case was brought to the notice of the District Munsif. I think the proper order would be to allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the

District Munsif and direct the petitioner to pay the respondent''s costs. No orders necessary on the stay petition.