SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS Vs. RASESWARI CHAUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter the defendant Cassowary Ohaudhurani has filed exceptions to the report made by the Official Referee of this Court in pursuance of an order made on 6 May 1913. The report was made on 8 December 1916. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that as the defendant was in contempt she was not entitled to file exceptions to the report. It appears that the defendant is an executrix under the will of her late husband and that there was another executor since deceased. This suit was filed on 27th April 1912 on behalf of the adopted son of the defendant against her and her co-executor for, inter alia, on account of the dealings of the defendant and her co-executor with the estate. To put the matter shortly, accounts were ordered and the defendant as one of the accounting parties was ordered to file her acconnts. A preliminary decree was passed on 6 May 1913. An order was made on 6 May 1916, by Greaves, J., directing the defendant to file her accounts. On 7 August 1916, Chaudhuri, J., passed an order the material portion of which is: I gave her time up to 15 September to file her accounts. This date is fixed peremptorily. In default the referee to proceed without her accounts and she will be precluded from filing any accounts thereafter and the reference will be treated as being heard ex parte against her.

(2.) Against this order the defendant appealed. The judgment of the appeal Court was: We have come to the conclusion that the matters which were before the learned Judge were matters for his discretion and on the materials before us we cannot say that he has exorcised his discretion wrongly. We desire to make it clear that the applicant, the executrix, is not precluded by the order as we construe it from appearing at the reference. If any order is necessary (I do not think it is necessary) to make it quite clear we include in our judgment a direction that she shall have a right to appear at the reference.

(3.) The appeal was dismissed with costs.