Skip to content


Pattanna Vs. Neeli Chetty Ramiah Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1197; 108Ind.Cas.297
AppellantPattanna
RespondentNeeli Chetty Ramiah Chetty and anr.
Cases ReferredVenkatasubbiah v. Lakahsminarasimham A. I. R.
Excerpt:
- .....aside the order declaring defendant 2 ex parte in a pending suit. defendant 2 appeared and filed a written statement and afterwards did not appear and he was declared ex parte. considerable time afterwards he appeared and wanted the ex-parte order to ,be set aside. the district munsif refused to set aside the order making him ex parte as it was passed so far back as 22nd august 1925. when a person once files a written statement and then absents himself and in consequence is made ex parte, if ha afterwards appears and wants to fight the suit, he should be allowed to come in at the stage at which the suit is. he should not be shut out altogether on the ground that he was once placed ex parte. this point was decided by my brother wallace, j., so far back as 27th july 1925. the case is.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tiruvallur refusing to set aside the order declaring defendant 2 ex parte in a pending suit. Defendant 2 appeared and filed a written statement and afterwards did not appear and he was declared ex parte. Considerable time afterwards he appeared and wanted the ex-parte order to ,be set aside. The District Munsif refused to set aside the order making him ex parte as it was passed so far back as 22nd August 1925. When a person once files a written statement and then absents himself and in consequence is made ex parte, if ha afterwards appears and wants to fight the suit, he should be allowed to come in at the stage at which the suit is. He should not be shut out altogether on the ground that he was once placed ex parte. This point was decided by my brother Wallace, J., so far back as 27th July 1925. The case is reported in Venkatasubbiah v. Lakahsminarasimham A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 1274 It does not appear that this case was brought to the notice of the District Munsif. I think the proper order would be to allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct the petitioner to pay the respondent's costs. No orders necessary on the stay petition.


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