Subramaniam Chetty V. Naidu

Present: Bertram C. J. and Schneider J.

SUBRAMANIAM CHETTY v: NAIDU.

Application for restitutio in integrum in D. C. Colombo. 12, 037.

Warrant of attorney to confess judgment-Application for restitution- Fraud-Civil Procedure Code, s. 31.

Proceedings by way of restitutio in integrum will not be entertained to set aside a judgment given in pursuance of a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, except in the case of fraud or a fundamental departure from the terms of section 31 of the Civil Procedure Code.

If a creditor acts unlawfully upon a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, he does so at his peril, and it is open to the person damnified to proceed against such creditor in an appropriate action.

AN application by way of restitutio in integrum to set aside a judgment entered in pursuance of a power of attorney to confess judgment on two grounds, viz., first, that in the judgment which was recovered on a mortgage bond it was not intended to include money advanced on a promissory note; and second, that the attorney to whom the warrant was issued consented to an order for sale at once, and waived the requirements of section 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document