Namasivayam Chetty V. Ragsoobhoy

1944 Present: Keuneman and Cannon JJ.

NAMASIVAYAM CHETTY, Appellant, and RAGSOOBHOY,
Respondent.

62-D. C. (Inty.) Colombo 14,638.

Interrogatory-Failure to answer-Order striking off defence-Powers of Court- Civil Procedure Code, ss. 100 and 109.

Failure to answer interrogatories does not make a defendant liable to have his defence struck off under section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code.

In order to make the defendant liable to the penalty it is necessary that a peremptory order should be made under section 100.

The Court has a discretion to grant an indulgence in a case under section 109.

Karuppen Chetty s. Narayan Chetty 1 (2 C. L. Rec, 173) followed.

APPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Colombo. The facts appear from the argument.

N. Nadarajah, K. C. (with him V. A. Kandiah and S. Handy Perimpanayagam) for the defendant, appellant,--The plaintiff instituted this action claiming damages for breach of a contract,. Defendant filed

answer, and trial was fixed for September 27, 1943, on which date it was postponed for March 2, 1944. On November 24, 1943, the plaintiff obtained leave ex parte, under section 94 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document