John Wallis, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in a partition Suit brought by the 1st plaintiff now deceased against the defendant the son of his deceased brother. When the case came on after repeated adjournments the defendants vakil stated that he had no instructions and, after the plaintiffs evidence had been recorded and his pleader heard, the case was closed and judgment reserved. The defendant afterwards applied to the Court to hear arguments on his side before disposing of the case and to pass such other orders as were just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The District Judge rejected his application and we are not prepared to interfere with his order. The defendant had been grossly remiss. It is stated in the plaintiffs counter affidavit and not denied that the defendants vakil had sent him two registered notices to which the defendants paid no attention. All that he did was on the day before the hearing to send a telegram to an agent at Palamcottah five miles from the Court house asking one Sankaranarayana, who, he says, was his agent to remit Rs. 150 to the Vakil soon. As regards the allegation in his affidavit t