NATESA AIYAR Vs. VENKALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I cannot agree that the omission of the learned Subordinate Judge to give notice to the appellant of the transfer of the appeal from the District Court, was a sufficient cause for him to absent himself when the appeal was heard. He was served with a notice in the appeal and he omitted to put in an appearance. If he had done so, he would have known that the case had been transferred to the, Subordinate Judge. An applicant under Order 41, Rule 21, Civil Procedure Code, who admits receipt of notice is obliged like an applicant under Order 9, Rule 13 to show that he was "prevented by sufficient cause from appearing". On the facts in this case, it cannot be said that, the appellant was prevented; he simply chose to let the appeal be decided ex parte. This appeal is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.