John Wallis, C.J.

1. I am of opinion that Chandramathi Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyar (1909) I.L.R. 33 M. 241 to which I was a party was rightly decided. As the question is very fully dealt in the opinion of my learned brother, I shall merely state the conclusions at which I have arrived on further consideration. Under the Code, where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear either on the day fixed for the first hearing [Order IX, Rule 6(1)] or on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned [Order XVII, Rule 2 read with Order IX. Rule 6(1)], the Court, if it is proved that the summons was duly served, may proceed ex parte. In either case, where the Court has disposed of the case ex parte and passed a decree against the absent defendant, he may, under Order IX, Rule 13, move to set aside the decree on the ground that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on. When a case is called on and the defendant is absent, and the Court resolves to proceed against him ex parte, there is nothing, I am now of opinion, to prevent the Court from applying the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 and disposing of the suit notwithstan