GOLJAN BIBI Vs. SHEIKH NAFAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Officiating District Judge of Dacca, dated 2nd November 1916, should not be set aside.

(2.) The order was made in the following circumstances. The petitioner filed an appeal in the District Judge s Court on the 31st May 1916. On the 4th July 1916 she was directed under Rule 10, Order XLI, to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 80 for the costs of the appeal and of the original suit. The time for furnishing security was more than once extended. On the 26th August 1916 the Officiating District Judge refused to extend the time further and dismissed the appeal under Clause (2) of Order XLI, Rule 10. On the 2nd November 1916, the petitioner applied for the re-admission of the appeal. By the first of the two orders made on that date, the Officiating District Judge directed that the appeal should be re-admitted if the amount of the security ordered were deposited in Court by the 8th November 1916. By the second order of the same date against which this Rule has been obtained, he rejected the application on the ground that it had just come to his notice that the application was time-barred by more than a month.

(3.) It is not disputed that the Judge had jurisdiction to re-admit the appeal after having dismissed it by an order under Clause (2), Rule 10, Order XLI.