( 145 )
SILVA v. BABAHAMY.D. C., Galle, 2,980.
Civil Procedure Code. *. 74—Aruicer—Time for filing.
Section 74 of the Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate onlyone extension of time for filing answer, the words “ at any subsequenttime ” of that section being intended to meet a case of more than oneextension.
rpHE facts of the case are fully stated in the judgment of the-1 Chief Justice.
Alwis, for appellant.
2nd August, 1895. Bonser, C.J.—
In this case the appellant was not ready with her answer onthe day fixed for her answer, and she got leave to file answer ona subsequent day. On that day, however, she was not ready ;but the Court did not proceed to hear the case ex parte and makea decree nisi as it might have done, but fixed the trial of the actionfor a date two months later. Long before the date of trial thedefendant appeared and applied for leave to file answer, andBtated in an affidavit the reasons—on the face of them satisfactory—why she had not filed her answer on the day fixed for thatpurpose by the Court. The District Judge, however, held thathe had no power to receive the answer or to extend the timefor filing answer, being of opinion that section 74 of the CivilVOL. I.U
( 146 )
Procedure Code allowed only of one extension of time for filingBonbkb, C.J. answer.
I am of opinion that the District Judge has construed theCode too literally, and that it admits of a more elastic inter-pretation. I think the words “at any subsequent time” areintended to meet a case of more than one extension, and,therefore, that the appellant ought to be allowed to file heranswer.
The District Judge suggests that she should wait until the casehas been heard and decided, and then, when she has been servedwith notice of the decree, move to have it set aside. That wouldbe a most inconvenient procedure. I think every reason ofjustice and convenience favours her being allowed to filq answer.
The appeal is allowed.
Withers, J., concurred.
SILVA v. BABAHAMY