SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1938 Supreme(Mad) 320

VARADACHARIAR
Perumal Naicken – Appellant
Versus
Kondama Naicken – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. These petitions have been filed by the first defendant in the Lower Court, asking this Court to revise two orders passed by the lower Court in the following circumstances.

2. The first defendant did not appear on the first hearing date and he was declared ex parte on 10th January, 1936. On 30th July, 1936, he applied to have that order set aside alleging that summons had not been served on him. The lower Court was of opinion that this allegation was not true and accordingly dismissed that petition on 15th August, 1936. C.R.P. No. 1317 has been filed against this order.

3. On 18th August. 1936, the first defendant applied for permission to file a written statement and to take further part in the conduct of the case. The District Munsif was of opinion that in view of his former order dismissing his application to set aside the order declaring him ex parte all that the first defendant could be permitted to do was to cross-examine the witnesses on the other side without letting in any evidence on his side. He was also of opinion that the first defendant was not entitled to file a written statement at that stage. With these observations, he dismissed the petiti




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top