ANAND SWAROOP Vs. KISHANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been preferred against the order dated the 16th of March, 1960 passed by Shri B. N. Saxena, Addl. Sessions Judge Gwalior, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1955.

(2.) CIVIL Suit No. 98 of 1952 on the file of the Civil Judge Class II Gwalior was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence to be recorded on 21 -9 -1955. The defendant and his counsel were found absent on that day when the case was called on for hearing. An ex -parte order was passed against the defendant and the case was posted for evidence of the plaintiffs to be recorded on 24 -9 -1955. On that day the plaintiffs' evidence was recorded and the case was fixed for ex -parte judgment on 26 -9 -1955. At the close of the hearing of the case on 24 -9 -1955 the defendant put in an application for setting asid the ex -parte order dated 21 -9 -1955. This application was rejected and an ex -parte decree was passed. An application for setting aside the ex -parte decree was rejected by the Court of first instance. On appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Gwalior the order refusing to set aside the ex -parte decree was reversed The plaintiff have now come up in revision against that order.

(3.) IT was held in Federal Indian Assurance Co, vs. Anandrao Dixit ( : A.I.R. 1944 NAG 161) that Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. applies only to interlocutary applications. It cannot apply to applications of a substantive nature such as for instance as for instance those uner Order 21 Rule 90, Order 21 Rule 100, Order 33 Rule 2, Order 9 Rule 13 etc., substantive applications are those which initiate proceedings; whereas applications relating to matters incidental to proceedings already pending in the Court are termed as interlocutory applications.