JUDGMENT Ameer Ali, J. - In this matter I have to deal with a point that has frequently arisen, which depends upon the construction and application of rules which have become odiously complicated, and of which I am myself extremely ignorant. The point is this. Under what circumstances can a suit, in which one of the Defendants enters appearance and the others do not, be set down in the undefended list. The circumstances under which this question usually arises, is the common case of claim against members of a joint Hindu family. Very often one Defendant enters appearance and if one view of the matter, which I am about to discuss, is taken, it means by doing that the suit has to be dealt with as a defended suit and the matter can be held up in this manner. 2. It has before been contended before me, and has been again contended on this occasion, that where one Defendant enters appearance, except as provided in certain rules which do not apply in this case, the matter cannot be set down against any of the Defendants in the undefended list and that it can in no event be set down if one of the Defendants is a minor, and that where that allegation is made, if disputed, that question must first be investigated. 3. The relevant rules, those that have been brought to my attention or which I have myself noticed, are Ch. 8, r. 16; Ch. 9, rr. 3 and 4; Ch. 10, r. 7, r. 25, r. 27. I ought to add, by reason of certain matters which I shall explain, Ch. 8, r. 19. 4. In this case one of the Defendants, Lachminarain Kezriwal, filed a written statement alleging that the last Defendant is a minor. After that a requisition was taken out, but I understand without notice and the Registrar was asked to transfer the suit to the undefended list, as against the major Defendants who had not entered appearance. He did so, relying upon a decision of another learned Judge sitting on the Original Side and upon the practice which I know also to have been followed on various occasions, the office have transferred these cases to the undefended list against the Defendants who do not appear. 5. He did so, relying upon a decision of another learned Judge sitting on the Original Side and upon the practice which I know also to have been followed on various occasions, the office have transferred these cases to the undefended list against the Defendants who do not appear. 5. The matter, however, has been gone into at length before me and I shall give my view upon it. 6. Counsel for the Plaintiff relies upon Ch. 9, r. 3 (b) read with Ch. 10, r. 7. 7. In this case, apart from the question of prior notice, which is prescribed by the amended rule on Ch. 10, it Joes not seem to me that the exception therein provided to Ch. 9, r. 3 applies. In other words, this is not a case where the Defendant who had entered appearance failed to file his written statement within time. 8. Counsel for the Defendant who has entered appearance relics upon Ch. 9, r. 4, and so far as the language goes it is wide enough to cover the case where some of the Defendants have not entered appearance, and the ones who have, have failed to file written statement. In that case again, as in the case of rule 3, summons is necessary. Summons is only excused by Ch. 10 amended r. 7. 9. In my opinion, r. 4, Ch. 9, is intended to apply not to a case of non-entry of appearance but simply to a case of failure to file written statement, although the language is wide enough to cover a case of non-entry of appearance. To my mind, the requirement of summons is only appropriate to a case where a party has entered appearance. 10. Therefore, this question of transferring the suit to the undefended list, so far as parties who have been failed to appear are concerned, appears to be governed by Ch. 8, r. 16 and Ch. 10, r. 25, a rule which I happened to have noticed only this morning. Now, that latter rule appears to me the appropriate one, because it does not talk about notice or summons but talks of setting the suit down in the undefended list, against the parties who have not appeared. 8, r. 16 and Ch. 10, r. 25, a rule which I happened to have noticed only this morning. Now, that latter rule appears to me the appropriate one, because it does not talk about notice or summons but talks of setting the suit down in the undefended list, against the parties who have not appeared. That seems to be the appropriate language and it provides that where a sole Defendant has, or all the Defendants being sui juris have failed to enter appearance then the suit shall, unless otherwise ordered, be set down in the undefended list. 11. That seems to be the rule which applies to a case of this kind and as I read it, it provides for a case where all the Defendants have failed to enter appearance and all those Defendants are sui juris. It may be there is an omission in our rules, but apart from this, I can find none which, in my opinion, relates to this particular case. It does impose a hardship on the Plaintiff in these cases and it may be that the rule should be differently drafted. Those are my own views and I express them because it appears that this matter will have to be looked into. 12. But the practice has been otherwise and on this application I shall make the following order. 13. To-day I have been informed by Mr. Agarwalla that on behalf of Baladeb, the first Defendant, appearance has been entered before the Registrar and Mr. Banerjee for Ganpatrai has applied to me for leave to enter appearance. He managed to persuade the Registrar that he was entitled to enter appearance, by reason of the last two lines of Ch. 8, r. 19 (amended). But the Registrar had his doubts about the matter and referred it to me for decision. 14. I am clear on this point, at any rate, that a mere adjournment does not operate as a removal of the case from the undefended list. Mr. Agarwalla's client therefore goes out and is in the same position as Mr. Banerjee's client who has not yet got in. In my opinion, under our present Rules, there should be an application upon summons, but for the purposes of this case, the matter having been fully discussed, I am prepared to make an order upon terms. Mr. Agarwalla's client therefore goes out and is in the same position as Mr. Banerjee's client who has not yet got in. In my opinion, under our present Rules, there should be an application upon summons, but for the purposes of this case, the matter having been fully discussed, I am prepared to make an order upon terms. The suit will stand over to the next undefended list. If by that time security has been given by any or all of the Defendants other than the Defendant who has entered appearance I shall remove the suit from the undefended list and give directions. The security must be available to satisfy the whole claim of the Plaintiff, I fix the sum at Rs. 2,000. Failing security the suit will proceed as an undefended suit against those Defendants who have not appeared and who are not alleged to be minors. There is no question about the minor or the suit proceeding against the minors as an undefended suit. Costs of the Defendant who has appeared and all other costs are reserved. The Defendant who has entered appearance need not appear if the matter comes on again on the undefended list against; those who are not appearing.