Tirupati Varadachariar and anr. Vs. A. Parthasarathy Iyengar - Court Judgment
|Judge||Charles Arnold White, C.J. and ;Seshagiri Aiyar, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1915Mad319(1); 25Ind.Cas.9|
|Appellant||Tirupati Varadachariar and anr.|
|Respondent||A. Parthasarathy Iyengar|
|Cases Referred||See Krishnabhubati v. Ramamurti|
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xiv, rule 3(1) (6), order xv, rule 3(1), proviso - summons to defend-ant for settlement of issues only--suit finally disposed of--jurisdiction. - - order xiv, rule 3(6), clearly has no application to the present case......to dispose of the case according to law after hearing such evidence as the parties desired to adduce and as far as possible ascertaining the wishes of the child. costs will abide the.....
1. We do not think it was within the power of the learned Judge to dispose of the case at the first hearing. See Krishnabhubati v. Ramamurti 16 M. 198.
2. The summons was issued for the settlement of issues only and the Vakil who appeared before the learned Judge at the first hearing tells us (and the other side are not able to say this is not so) that he objected to the disposal of the case at the first hearing. This being so we must hold that the proviso to Order XV, Rule 3(1), does not apply. Order XIV, Rule 3(6), clearly has no application to the present case. We must, therefore, set aside the decree and direct the learned Judge to dispose of the case according to law after hearing such evidence as the parties desired to adduce and as far as possible ascertaining the wishes of the child. Costs will abide the result.