AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 181 wordsThe 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 u/s 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.