(1.) An application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the petitioner to set aside an ex parte decree for eviction passed against him was itself dismissed for default. The petitioner then applied under Section 151 of the Code to set aside the order of dismissal stating reasons for his non-appearance when the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was called on for hearing. The Court below dismissed the application under Section 151 on the ground that as the Code provides an appeal from an order dismissing an application under Order 9, Rule 13. the application under Section 151 was not maintainable. The legality of this last order is in question in this Rule.
(2.) Mr. A. K. Motilal learned Advocate for the petitioner, raised two contentions to show that the order passed by the learned Munsif was wrong. Mr. Motilal submitted, first, that the order dismissing for default the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was not appealable and, secondly, even if the order was appealable this did not preclude the Court from setting aside the order of dismissal in exercise of its inherent power, if on the facts of the case the Court thought that it was necessary to do so for the ends of justice.
(3.) As regards the first contention, the point is covered so far as this Court is concerned by a decision of a Division Bench reported in 21 Cal LJ 628 = (AIR 1916 Cal 391), Kumud Kumar Bose v. Hari Mohan Samaddar, where it has been held that an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree, whether on the merits or for default is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) of the Code. The first submission of Mr. Motilal, therefore, fails.