The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Order 43 Rule 1(d) and the requirement for a clear and immediate rejection of the application to set aside ex parte decrees.

Mockett, J.

1. In this appeal Mr. Satyanarayana Rao has raised a preliminary point that no appeal lies. The facts are as follows : The appellants were defendants 2 to 14 in three suits-O. S. Nos. 58, 82 and 83 of 1943. There is no appeal by defendant 1. Before suits, attachments before judgment of substantially all the debtors properties were effected. On 21st March 1943, the defendants vakil left hurriedly for Benares to be present with his son, who was stated to be sick with small-pox. On 22nd March, it is said that an oral request was made by defendant 3 for an adjournment. On 25th March, I.A. No. 528 of 1943 was filed-an application to adjourn the case to 5th April which was dismissed; and on that day, ex parte decrees were passed in the three suits. On 2nd April 1943, I.A. Nos. 568, 569 and 570 were filed praying to set aside the three ex parte decrees. On 5th July 1943, an order was passed and in the judgment, the learned Judge said:

On the whole, I should think that the suits should be restored and sufficient costs should be awarded to the respondents as a panacea as was done by his Lordship in the ease quoted above, Venkateswara v. Subramaniam A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 974. I therefore order the petitioner to pay Rs. 100 for costs of the respondents irrespective of the result in the suits within 15 days from this date. They shall also deposit costs of the suits as a condition precedent before the trial of the suits which are hereby restored to file and posted peremptorily to 26th July 1943. In default, the petitions will stand dismissed with costs.

The decretal order on that judgment was:

It is ordered that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed. It is further ordered that the petitioners do deposit into Court a sum of Rs. 100 towards their costs in this petition and also in I.A. Nos. 569, 570 and 625 to 627 of 1943 irrespective of the result of the suits and do also deposit the costs decreed on or before 26th July 1943. It is further ordered that in default of payment the petitions do stand dismissed with costs." I.A. Nos. 625 to 627 of 1943 related to defendant 1 and we are not concerned with them in any way. There were certain further proceedings by the appellants with which we are not concerned. It is enough to say that they claim that they were quite unable to comply with the order of 5th July and had made attempts in the High Court to improve their position. An order for stay passed by the High Court reached the lower Court after the order of 26th July was passed. On 26th July, that is to say, some days after the expiration of 15 days from 5th July, and to which day the suits had been posted peremptorily by the learned Judge on 5th July 1943 the following order was passed:

Defendants are called and they are absent. The plaintiffs are ready. The defendants have not deposited the amount ordered to be paid into Court by this date in I.A. Nos. 568 and 625 of 1943. As the direction given in the order on the said petitions is not obeyed, the order operates and the decrees passed already stand." Mr. Satyanarayana Rao has argued that this is not within Order 43, Rule 1 (d). The appeals before us, he contends, are not against orders under Rule 13 or Rule 15 of Order 9, rejecting an application for an order to set aside a decree or order passed ex parte. He contends that an order of 5th July 1943 so far from being an order rejecting an application is an order allowing the application and he contends that if the appellants desire to appeal at all, they should have appealed not against the order of 5th July, but against the order of 26th July, which was the order dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that this argument is fallacious, that the order of 5th July was complete in itself and that the order of 26th July was not an order in relation to these applications, and did nothing more than recall what had happened with regard to the order o