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 · 157 wordsRamesam, J.—The District Munsif cannot set aside the ex parte"" decree on grounds other than those mentioned in Order IX Rule 13. See
Gadi Neelaveni v. Mavappareddigari Narayana Reddi 53 Ind. Cas. 817 : 43 M. 94 : 37 M.L.J 599 : 26 M.L.T. 377 : 10 L.W. 606 : (1020)
M.W.N. 19. A ground of the kind referred to in Order IX, Rule 13 is alleged by the petitioner in the Court below but not considered by the
District Munsif. It must now be taken that the 4th defendant did not appear on 20th February, 1925 [vide V. Manickam Pillai Vs. Mahudum
Bathummal and Others, ]. The District Munsif must consider the question whether he was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing on that
day.
The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the case remanded for disposal in the light of the above observations.
The costs will abide the result.