AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 401 wordsCurgenven, J.—We think that the preliminary objection taken by the respondent that no appeal will lie in this case must prevail. An ex parte
decree was passed against the appellants and they applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to have it set aside. This application
was dismissed for their default. They then applied to have that order set aside and their application restored and this has been dismissed upon the
merits. It is from this Order that the appeal is preferred, and it is urged that it will lie under Order 43, Rule (1)(c), Civil Procedure Code, by force
of the application of Section 141 of the Code. That section provides that:
The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil
Jurisdiction.
And it has been invoked as sufficient warrant for the view held in two Madras cases, Venkatanarasimha Rao v. Suryanaryana AIR 1926 Mad.
325 and Salar Beg Saheb Vs. Karumanchi Kotayya, that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, will apply to applications made
under the same rule as well as to applications to set aside a dismissal of a suit. That however is not to say that the same section will avail to confer
a right of appeal. It deals only with procedure, whereas a right of appeal is a substantive right. u/s 104 of the Code such a right is enjoyed only in
respect of orders specified in that Section or in Order 43, Rule 1. There is ample authority for this position, see Chandar Sahai v. Durga Prasad
I.L.R.(1924) 46 All. 538 Sharif Husain v. Haidar Hussin AIR 1922 All. 337 and Hara Kumar Mitter v. Murari Mohan Bose (1922) 69 I.C.
1003. The case in Jagdish Narain Prashad Singh v. Harbans Narain Singh (1917) 2 P.L.J. 720 is, we think, a decision in the same sense though
the head-note is clearly wrong and the judgment is not very clearly expressed. The analogous question whether an appeal will lie against an
application to set aside a dismissal not of a suit but of another application under the Code has been decided in Jung Bahadur v. Mahadeo Prosad
I.L.R.(1903) Cal. 207, which related to the old Code and dealt with an application under what is now Order 21, Rule 90.