Madras High Court
V. Arumugam Pillai vs V. Kandasami Pillai on 6 September, 1927
Equivalent citations: AIR1928MAD211A
JUDGMENT
1. There is no sufficient reason to interfere with the Subordinate Judge's order. There was indeed no need for the petitioner to get the order that the inquiry into the original petition would proceed ex-parte, so far as he was concerned, set aside, if, as is now explained for him, he wanted only to take part in the case at the stage which it had reached. When he eventually did appear, he was entitled to take part in the proceedings and is still entitled to do so, provided that his intervention at this stage does not delay the proceedings. For instance, if the evidence had been closed, it would not be proper to allow him to call fresh evidence unless he has satisfied the Subordinate Judge that he had good reason for not appearing earlier. On that point the Subordinate Judge was not satisfied, and I see no sufficient reason to differ from him. The petition is dismissed with costs.