Kandasamy v. Kandasamy – SLR – 260, Vol 2 of 2006 – sllr 2006 volume 2 page 260

In the case between the plaintiff (petitioner/respondent) and the 1st and 2nd defendants concerning a divorce action involving allegations of adultery, malicious desertion, alimony, and damages, the Court addressed the propriety of fixing a case for ex-parte trial in circumstances where a defendant is absent but represented by counsel who moves for an adjournment. The findings established that representation by a registered Attorney-at-Law constitutes appearance for the purpose of trial proceedings, and an ex-parte trial could not be fixed merely due to the defendant’s physical absence if counsel was present. The statutory framework, including sections 24, 82, 84, 91A, 143, and 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, alongside Rule 46 compliance regarding certified copies, was analyzed. It was de