MUTTAIYA CHETTY v. ARUMUGAM.

MUTTAIYA CHETTY v. ARUMUGAM.

D. C., Kandy, 15,301.

Civil Procedure Code, chapter 53-Action on promissory note-Summons to appear, with liberty to obtain leave to defend within fourteen days-Application for such leave made out of time-Right of Court to impose terms in giving leave to defend.

Where, in an action on a promissory note brought under chapter 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant did not apply in time for leave to appear and defend the suit, the Court is entitled, under section 706 of the Code, to put him on terms as a person in default as regards the defence of the suit.

The effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arunasalam Chetty v. Assina Marikar (2 Browne, 295) and Davies & Co. v. Perera (ib. 297) explained.

IN this case two defendants were sued on a promissory note, and summons issued against them under chapter 53 of the Civil Procedure Code to appear and obtain leave to defend within fourteen days. The Fiscal reported that the summons was served

on the second defendant on 16th May, 1902. On the 31st May he applied for leave to defend, but his application was refused as he was two days out of time. He re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document