RAM SARUP Vs. GAYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has to be determined by the Full Bench is whether this Court can interfere in revision with an appellate order directing the setting aside of an ex parte decree, when the appellate court had no power, under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 to give such a direction.

(2.) There are two grounds upon which it has bean urged before us that the Court cannot subject this order to revision: (1) because the party against whom The order has been passed is not without another remedy; and (2) because the order does not fall within The purview of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. as there is no case which has been decided.

(3.) Dealing with these propositions in inverse order I would say that the second one of them is untenable. In my opinion we have before us a case which has been decided. It cannot with any show of reason be maintained that the order complained of is a more interlocutory order passed in the course of the trial of the suit, for the suit, had been brought to an end by the passing of the ex parte decree. At the time this order was made there was no suit pending between the parties. TIK) proceedings in which the order was passed were quite distinct from the proceedings constituting the suit.