1927 Supreme(Mad) 567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Devadoss
Pattanna
Versus
Neeli Chetty Ramiah Chetty And
Decided On : 31 October, 1927

A defendant who reappears after being declared ex parte should be allowed to participate in the suit, rather than being shut out altogether.

Headnote:

Revision - Setting Aside Ex Parte Order - The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the District Munsif, directing the petitioner to pay the respondent's costs.

Fact of the Case:

Defendant 2 appeared and filed a written statement, then did not appear and was declared ex parte. He later appeared and wanted the ex-parte order to be set aside.

Finding of the Court:

The District Munsif refused to set aside the ex-parte order, citing the passage of time. However, the court held that a defendant who reappears after being declared ex parte should be allowed to participate in the suit.

Issues: The issue was whether the ex-parte order should be set aside for the defendant who reappeared after being declared ex parte.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a defendant who once files a written statement and then reappears after being declared ex parte should be allowed to participate in the suit, rather than being shut out altogether.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the District Munsif, and directed the petitioner to pay the respondent's costs.