VENKATACHELAPATHI CHETTIAR Vs. PERIYASAMI UDAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ruling in Chandramathi Ammal V/s. Narayanasami Iyer 19 M.L.J. 760 : 5 Ind. Cas. 23 hinds me to hold that the disposal of the suit must be referred to Section 157 of the Code of 1882. THE plaintiff, therefore, was right in proceeding by way of application for restoration. THE Subordinate Judge does not say that he disbelieved the plaintiff's explanation and it was not suggested to me that if that explanation is true, the cause shown was not sufficient. What is argued is that the Vakil's absence is not satisfactorily explained. It seems to me that if the plaintiff has shown sufficient reason for his own absence, he is at any rate, if his presence is necessary as in this case, entitled to ask for the order of restoration even if his Vakil was in default. 1 set aside the order refusing restoration and direct the restoration of the suit to the file and its disposal according to law.

(2.) COSTS will abide the event.