Chagla, C.J.

[1] This is an appeal from an order of Shah J. refusing to set aside an ex parte decree at the instance of defendant 2. The suit was filed on 26-1-1950, and the cause of action was moneys lent and advanced to the two defendants who were described as carrying on business under a partnership name. An ex parte decree was passed against both the defendants on 4-7-1950. Defendant 1 took out a notice of motion on 21-10-1950, to set aside the ex parte decree, and on 16-2-1951, the ex parte decree was set aside as against defendant 1. On 13-3-1951, defendant 1 filed his written statement. On 17-7-1951, defendant 2, who is the appellant before us, took out a notice of motion to set aside the ex parte decree as against him. Shah J. dismissed the notice of motion on 27-7-1951, and hence this appeal.

[2] Now, the application to set aside the ex parte decree as far as defendant 2 is concerned is time-barred, and Mr. Bhabha who appears for the appellant concedes it. But his contention is that his clients application is really under our inherent jurisdiction and he appeals to us to exercise our inherent jurisdiction under Order 9, Rule 13 and set aside the decree as a whole and