Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. is applicable to proceedings under the Orissa State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and the engagement of a party's lawyer in another Court may be a sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This Civil Revision arises out of an order of the District Judge:, Cuttack, in Misc. Case No. 79 of 1981 setting aside the final order passed u/s 38(7) of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Act, ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), confirming the order of attachment and directing the sale of attached property of the opposite party.

2. The short facts bereft of details relevant for disposal of the case, are as follows :

"In the year 1971, the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') accommodated the opposite party with some loan as per the agreement entered into with him. On the allegation that the opposite party failed to discharge the loan, the Corporation enforced the claim u/s 31 of the Act. On receipt of the application, the District Judge passed an ad interim order attaching the security for the loan and issued notice to the opposite party. After the opposite party showed cause, the District Judge proceeded to investigate into the claim of the Corporation and decided that the opposite party has the right to begin. Thereafter, the case was not heard on various dates and was ultimately posted to 1. 7. 1981 for investigation. On that day, the lawyer for the opposite party filed a petition that the case should be adjourned for fifteen days as he was on his legs in a case in the High Court. This application for adjournment was rejected on the ground that law does not permit adjournment on such a ground. Thereafter, another application was filed that the lawyer being on his legs in the High Court was not able to-examine or cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, it was prayed that the documents by both the parties might be marked as exhibits that day and the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses might be deferred till 6. 7. 1981, which was a Monday. This was not also entertained. Although, the opposite party had the Tight to begin, without closing the case of the opposite party, the petitioner was permitted to adduce evidence. P. W. 1 was examined on behalf of the Corporation and exhibits were worked. On 4.7.1981, the Misc. Case tinder section 31 was allowed ex parte and the order of attachment was made absolute. Opposite party filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order. This petition was allowed on-28. 11. 1981 on the finding that non-participation of the Advocate on account tit being engaged in another Court should not lead a party to suffer.

This is the impugned order in this case Mr. R.N. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has submitted that Order 9 has no application to a proceeding u/s 31 of the Act, Secondly, he has submitted that the application tot setting aside the ex parte order does not come within the scope of Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. Thirdly-, he has submitted that adjournment of a case on the ground of the lawyer being engaged in another Court being statutorily prohibited in Order 17, Rule 3, C. P. C, there was no scope for setting aside the ex parte order on that ground. Lastly, Mr. Sinha has submitted that there is no material to support the ground that the lawyer was so engaged in the High Court. AH the contentions of Mr. Sinha require careful consideration.

3. Recovery of money lent is a civil tight. The remedy of a person to realise money lent is by filing a suit in the Civil Court. In view of the special nature of the loan under the Act, forum and manner of recovery have been provided under the Act. It is provided u/s 32(6) of the Act that the investigation of the claim of the Corporation in an application u/s 31 is to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the CPC in so far as such provisions may be applied thereto. Thus proceeding arising out of an application u/s 31 of the Act is a civil proceeding and provisions of C. P. C. would be applicable unless there is inconsistency. To such a proceeding, the provisions of C. P. C. are also applicable u/s 141 of the Act,