KANAKARATTAMMA Vs. VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.M.P. No. 4179 of 1976 delay occured of three days in filing the legal Representative petition and tbat delay is sought to be condoned. C.M.P. No. 4180 of J976 is for seeking consequential orders. A question affecting the procedure is raised as that question falls for consideration on office objection. The second respondent in the appeal was the second defendant in the suit and in the trial he was seb ex parte. Whether for purposes of the two applications notice is to be issued to the second respondent is the question raised. The office directed the petitioners to pay batta for notice to the second respondent. The petitioners urged the second respondent was set ex parte in the lower Courts, therefore no notice need be issued under Order 41 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is represented by the office the practice is to issue notice even to those who have been set ex parte and relied in support of the practice on the order of Justice Satyanarayana Rao on 10-1-1955 which reads as under:

(2.) The facts in the case disclose the contestiag respondents in the appeal were not ex parte in the trial. Long after the decision in (1, rule 14 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended and the proviso reads as follows:

(3.) This proviso now stands deleted and in substitution clause (4) is added to the Rule. That clause reads thus: