NEELAKANTA IYER Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the whole I am not disposed to interfere for, it would appear that the order of the learned Munsiff allowing the application brought by the defendant, the General Manager of the Southern Railway, under O.9 R.13 CPC. can be justified on the score that summons in the suit was not served upon the defendant in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed for the hearing so that it can be said that he had sufficient cause within the meaning of the rule. The hearing was on 20-3-1959 but summons was served on the defendant only on 2-3-1959. R.67 of the T.C. Civil Rules of Practice [the rules that apply] gives an indication of what is sufficient time for appearance in a suit. It says that in a Munsiffs Court the date for appearance in an original suit shall be so fixed as to give not less than 21 days from the date of service. [I am assuming that the defendant is not entitled to the longer period of 90 days allowed when the State is the defendant). In this case only 18 days elapsed, and the learned Munsiff himself seems to have thought that there was not sufficient time, for, after having very rightly ignored a letter dated 16-3-1959 from the defendant praying fora long adjournment for the purpose of engaging counsel (see O.3 R.1 CPC and R.31 of the Rules of Practice), he adjourned the case to 24-3-1959 and passed the ex parte decree only on that day. This adjournment, it is clear, could only have been under O.9 R.6(1)(c) and, had the learned Munsiff directed notice of the new date as required by that rule, the defendant would have had no excuse whatsoever. But it does not appear that this was done so that the defendant could not have known of the new date of hearing and had therefore a good excuse for not appearing on that date.