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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 567

DEVADOSS
Pattanna – Appellant
Versus
Neeli Chetty Ramiah Chetty And – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. 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 pet

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