KESAVALU NAIDU Vs. JANAKIRAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant in I. A. No. 1117 of 1971 in O. S. No. 24 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ranipet, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in that suit. I. A. No. 1117 of 1971 was filed by the petitioner under O. 9. Rule 13 C. P. Code, for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him. The court below passed an order on 27-3-1972 and the decretal order reads as follows-

(2.) Sri R. Ramalinga Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order passed by the District Munsif, Ranipet on 27-3-1972 is a self-contained order and it would work itself out if the conditions imposed were not satisfied and it would tant-amount to rejection of the application within the meaning of O. 43, Rule 1(d) C. P. C. The learned counsel wants to derive support for his submission from the ratio of two judicial precedents of this court. The first one is that reported in Ramayya v. Lakshmayya AIR 1944 Mad 383. In that case, a Division Bench of this court consisting of Mockett and Bell JJ. had occasion to consider an order dated 5-7-1943, which read as follows-

(3.) Sri K. Radhakrishnan learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the dictum laid down in the above decisions cannot be invoked in the present case for the reason that the order passed by the District Munsif, Ranipet, on 27-31972, cannot be said to be an 'all-comprehensive' one, because there was a necessity for the said court to pass further order on 6-4-1972, which in fact was passed by that court to the effect set out already. According to the learned counsel, it was only after an order was passed on 6-4-1972, that a finality was given to the orders of the District Munsiff, Ranipet, and only by virtue of the order dated 6-4-1972, it may be said that the application in I. A. No. 1117 of 1971, in O. S. No. 24 of 1971 was rejected so as to make the later order alone appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(d) C. P. C. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent seems to be well founded. It cannot be said that the order passes by the District Munsif, Ranipet, on 27-3-1972, is an 'allcomprehensive' one. The said court has reserved and postponed the passing of final orders to a future date, namely, on 6-4-1972, and only when orders were passed on 6-4-1972, it can be said that finality was given with reference to the order of the said court. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, there was an order passed on 6-4-1972 dismissing the petition for the non-compliance of the conditions imposed earlier by order dated 27-3-1972. When the District Munsif of Ranipet passed orders on 27-3-1972, there obviously was an intention expressed to postpone the passing of final orders and reverse final consideration of the question to another date. The ratio of decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as they are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case which were the subject matters of consideration in the above decisions. I find that the District Judge, North Arcot passed the correct order when he said that the appeal sought to be preferred is incompetent. There are no grounds in law for interfering with the said order. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.