Shariba Beeby v. Abdul Salam

477; A.I.R, 1927 Mad. 507; 38 M.L.T. 275 and Narsimha Chettiar v. Balakrishna Chetty 101 Ind. Cas. 651; 52 M.L.J. 512; A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 487; 38 M.L.T. 359 to the latter of which one of us was a party. The contrary view was taken by Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar, J., in Vitta Venkatachalam v. Sivapuram Subbiah 108 Ind. Cas. 889; A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 655; 54 M.L.J. 448 but in comingtohis conclusion hehad not adverted to the provisionsof O. V, Rule 20, Clause (2) and with all respect we are unable to accept his view as against the provisionsof that section.

A further contention is raised that no revision petition under Section 115 can be entertained in the present case. As, however, the District Munsif has refused to take evidence merely because he thinks that certain facts are probable, we think that this is certainly a material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. There are allegations in the respondent's affidavit to the effect that he was fraudulently kept out of knowledge of the proceedings in Court, and the question of whether substituted service was duly effected has not been tried by the District Munsif. We must, therefore, set aside his order and remand the petition to him for fresh disposal after admitting any evidence on this point which maybe adduced and in the light of the above remarks.

Costs of this petition will abide the result.