1. The appellant says in his affidavit that be was present on 4th September 1924 with his witnesses. Though the B diary says that the respondent was absent, we find the judge's notes show that the appellants' affidavit is substantially correct and that the case was adjourned for sessions.
2. The allegations in the appellant's affidavit explaining his non-appearance on the 2nd October 1924, are uncontradicted and the appellant ought to have been given another opportunity to prove his case. But as he did not inform his vakil on 3rd October 1924 he must pay the day costs of that day to the respondent. Other costs in the Court below will abide the result. There will be no order as to costs in appeal as the official receiver opposed in the Court below and necessitated this appeal.
3. The case in Venugopalachariar v. Chinnulal Sowcar A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 942 does not apply to this case as it was a case of annulment.
4. The appeal is allowed on the above terms and I. A. 412 of 1924 will be disposed of according to law,