MUTHU PAYAL ALIAS MUTHU NADAN Vs. NAGALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant's Vakil says he has no instructions. THE party does not appear. THE second appeal is dismissed for default with costs.

(2.) THE second appeal having been dismissed for default, the respondent presses his memorandum of objections. It is admitted that such a memorandum under the old Code of Civil Procedure cannot be argued. It is not a memorandum under rule 22 of order XLI of the New Code. In C.M.A. No. 124 of 1908 the question was not argued. We must, therefore, disallow this memorandum of objections. But the respondent says he is entitled to his costs on the authority of Appeal Suit No. 208 of 1905. All that that case decided was that the Court had jurisdiction to allow costs upon such a memorandum. That case does not compel us to hold that the respondent in every such case is entitled to the costs of his memorandum. In this case we are not satisfied we should allow costs on the memorandum. THE memorandum of objections is dismissed.