( 64 )
Lyalt.Grant J.
Marikar v.Perera
In Fonseka, v. UJckurala 1 the Court held that where a claimantwas prevented from attending the inquiry and presenting hisclaim owing to a mistake on the part of the Court, and the Courtdismissed the claim owing to the absence of the claimant, theorder was not a valid order under section 245 and was notconclusive within the meaning of section 247.
In Chelliah v. Sinnacutty 2 it was held that where the claim wasdismissed owing to a default by the claimant in supplying thenecessary stamps to issue notice on the parties, it did not amountto an order disallowing the claim under section 245.
It is clear that the practice of this Court has been to insist interalia, upon an inquiry, in open Court, and that such an inquiry alonehas been considered to b.e the investigation mentioned in section 241.
An order made without such an investigation, or at any ratewithout an opportunity being given to the claimant to prove hisclaim and to the creditor to raise objections, is not an order undersection 245. and does not prevent the claimant maintaining anaction after Ihe fourteen days mentioned in section 247 haveelapsed.
Set aside.
> (1912) 15 N. L. R. 219.
* (1914) 18 N. L. R. €5.