Skip to content


Natesa Ayyar Vs. Venkalakshmi Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad53
AppellantNatesa Ayyar
RespondentVenkalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Excerpt:
- - , who admits receipt of notice is obliged like an applicant under order 9, rule 13, to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing......judge to give notice to the appellant of the transfer of the appeal from the district court was a sufficient cause for him to absent himself when the appeal was heard. he was served with a notice in the appeal and he omitted to put in an appearance. if he had done so, he would have known that the case had been transferred to the subordinate judge. an applicant under order 41, rule 21, civil p.c., who admits receipt of notice is obliged like an applicant under order 9, rule 13, to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. on the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented; he simply chose to let the appeal be decided ex parte. this appeal is dismissed with costs of respondent 1.
Judgment:

Burn, J.

1. I cannot agree that the omission of the learned Subordinate Judge to give notice to the appellant of the transfer of the appeal from the District Court was a sufficient cause for him to absent himself when the appeal was heard. He was served with a notice in the appeal and he omitted to put in an appearance. If he had done so, he would have known that the case had been transferred to the Subordinate Judge. An applicant under Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C., who admits receipt of notice is obliged like an applicant under Order 9, Rule 13, to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. On the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented; he simply chose to let the appeal be decided ex parte. This appeal is dismissed with costs of respondent 1.


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