Skip to content


Muniappan Chetti Vs. Balayan Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.1167
AppellantMuniappan Chetti
RespondentBalayan Chetti
Cases Referred and Shankar Dat Dube v. Radha Krishna
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 108 - 'ex-parte decree'--defendant filing written statement--failure to appear on a subsequent hearing--decree passed in absence of defendant. - - 1. the appellant, the 6th defendant, filed a written statement, but failed to appear at any adjourned hearing, and a decree was passed against him in his absence......him in his absence. he has now applied under section 108, civil procedure code, to set aside the decree passed ex parte against him. following the decisions in ramanuja reddiar v. rangaswami ayangar 18 m.l.j. 51; 3 m.l.t. 225; jonardhan dhobey v. ramdhone singh 23 c. 738 ; hildreth v. sayaji piraji contractor 20 b. 380 and shankar dat dube v. radha krishna 20 a. 195 which were apparently not cited before the learned judge, we hold that the appellant is entitled to make this application. the lower courts have not decided whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suits was heard. it is also alleged that the application is barred by limitation. we, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the learned judge and the courts below and direct the district.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant, the 6th defendant, filed a written statement, but failed to appear at any adjourned hearing, and a decree was passed against him in his absence. He has now applied under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the decree passed ex parte against him. Following the decisions in Ramanuja Reddiar v. Rangaswami Ayangar 18 M.L.J. 51; 3 M.L.T. 225; Jonardhan Dhobey v. Ramdhone Singh 23 C. 738 ; Hildreth v. Sayaji Piraji Contractor 20 B. 380 and Shankar Dat Dube v. Radha Krishna 20 A. 195 which were apparently not cited before the learned Judge, we hold that the appellant is entitled to make this application. The lower Courts have not decided whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suits was heard. It is also alleged that the application is barred by limitation. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the learned Judge and the Courts below and direct the District Munsif to restore the application to his file and dispose of it in accordance with law. Costs will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //