1. O.17 R.2 and 0.17 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as they stand after the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 104 of 1976 are materially different from the corresponding provisions as they stood prior to the amendment. 0.17 R.3 contemplated a judgment on the merits. But a judgment does not become a judgment on the merits falling under 0.17 R.3 merely because the judgment purports to be on the merits. The court may have, in the judgment discussed the issues in the case, considered the evidence and decided the case on the merits. But nevertheless it will not be a disposal under 0.17 R.3 if the prerequisite for application of the rule is not satisfied. The party to whom time has been granted must be in default. If the case comes up not after grant of such time to the party, 0.17 R.3 will have no application. The disposal will then be under 0.17 R.2 though it purports to be one on the merits. In such a case a defendant notwithstanding the purported disposal on the merits could seek to reopen the decree by an application under 0.9 R.13 of the CPC.

2. After the amendment in 1976 0.17 R.2 stands with an explanation added to it. That explanation reads:

Explanation.- Where t