085-NLR-NLR-V-58-RATNAM-PILLAI-Petitioner-and-ABDUL-LATIFF-Respondent.pdf
:1957Present :Pulle, J., and Sansoni, J.
PiATNAM PILLAT, Petitioner, and ABDUL LATIFF, RespondentS. C. 551—Application for revision in D. C. Kandy, M. R■ 6,320
TOC o "1-5" h z
<7itil Procedure Code—Section S I—yon-appearance oj plaintiff-—Decree nisi—ProperForm.',
tVliero a decree nisi for* non-appearance of plaintiff recited Hint the notionivns dismissed “ unless sufTicient cnusc bo shown to the contrary within onemonth from the date hereof to Court ”—•
Held, that the decree nisi was not in*conformity with Form 2Co. 21 in t-ho-First Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code.*
(1036) !■;. D. L. 143 at 109.
J^lPPUCATIOX to revise a decree entered by the District Court,Kandy.
A. C. Xadarajah, for the plaintiff-petitioner.
Siva Jtajaratnam, for the defendant-respondent.
January 30, 1957. Pl;lle, J.—
The decree entered in this case is not in conformity with Form No. 21in the First Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code inasmuch as it recitesthat the action is dismissed by Court “ unless sufficient cause be shownto the contrary within one month from the date hereof to Court ”. The“ Decree Nisi ” is, therefore, set aside and the ease remitted to the DistrictCourt with the direction that a fresh “ Decree Nisi ” in conformity withForm No. 21 be entered up and bearing the date on which it is actuallysigned. It would thereafter be open to the plaintiff to take the necessarysteps, if he is so advised, to have it set aside. There will be no costs.
Decree set aside.
Sasso.m, J.—I agree.