RAJMBAL AMMAL Vs. APPASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Munsif cannot set aside the ex parte" decree on grounds other than those mentioned in Order IX Rule 13. See Gadi Neelaveni V/s. Mavappareddigari Narayana Reddi 53 Ind. Cas. 817 : 43 M. 94 : 37 M.L.J 599 : 26 M.L.T. 377 : 10 L.W. 606 : (1020) M.W.N. 19 (F.B.). A ground of the kind referred to in Order IX, Rule 13 is alleged by the petitioner in the Court below but not considered by the District Munsif. It must now be taken that the 4th defendant did not appear on 20 February, 1925 [vide Manickam Pillai V/s. Mahudum Bathummal 82 Ind. Cas. 102 : 47 M.L.J. 398 : 20 L.W. 427 : (1924) M.W.N. 689 : 47 M. 819 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 21 (F.B.) ]. The District Munsif must consider the question whether he was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing on that day.

(2.) The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the case remanded for disposal in the light of the above observations.

(3.) The costs will abide the result.