KARAI CHINNAPPA NAIDU Vs. B.K. DEENADAYALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner, who applied within time to set it aside. While the application was pending, he was arrested on the 4th February, 1946, and did not appear on the adjourned date, the 8th February 1946. His Vakil reported to instructions; and his application was dismissed. He was released from jail on the 17th October, 1946, and he filed the present application on the 28th October, 1946, to set aside the order of dismissal. The District Munsiff of Udumalpet held that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal for default; because the application had not been fieled within 30 days of his order.

(2.) IT has been held by this Court that when an application under Order 9, Rule 13, has been dismissed for default, an application under Order 9, Rule 9, to set aside the order of dismissal for default will lie. If so, then under Article 163 of the Limitation Act an application would have to be filed within thirty days of the order of dismissal. It was held in Sundaresa Iyer v. : AIR1933Mad258 , and in cases which followed it that the Court had no inherent jurisdiction to extend the time, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act had no application to proceedings of this kind.