Lagadapati Venkata Nagabushanam vs Garlapati Mahalakshmi and Others

Abdur Rahim, J.—The first respondent brought a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Agent in the Godavari district for

dissolution of partnership and other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default. Then the plaintiff appealed to the Agent who, without hearing the

defendant in the suit, set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and directed that the suit be restored to the file of the Assistant Agent to be

heard and disposed of according to law. Against the order of the Agent the present civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred asking us to

direct the Agent to review his order according to Rule 8 of the Agency Rules. But that rule applies only to decrees passed by the Government

Agent and to judgments leading to decrees.

A preliminary objection is taken that the order of the Agent directing that the suit be restored to file is not a decree within the meaning of the

Agency Rules. We think that this contention is sound. The point has been decided in Sri Pedda Vikrama Deo Garu v. The Maharaja of Jeypore

(1916) 4 L.W 499 following a number of other decisions of this Court. There a decree is understood as meaning the same thing as a decree under

the Civil Procedure Code, for the Agency Rules themselves do not contain any definition of ''decree.'' We see no reason for differing from that

interpretation. What, however, was argued by the learned vakil for the petitioner was that though the order of the Assistant Agent dismissing the

suit for default is not a decree yet the order of the Agent setting aside that order and directing the restoration of the suit is an adjudication of the

rights of the parties within the meaning of the definition of ''decree'' as given in the old Civil Procedure Code. But it is difficult to accept this

contention. The right contemplated by that definition is not a right to the benefit of certain rules of procedure, that is to have an order of Court set

aside by which the plaintiff''s suit has been disposed of without trial. We may observe that Rule 16 of the Agency Rules provides that all petitions

against the proceedings of the Government Agent must, in the first instance, be submitted to the Government and then it is open to the Government

to refer the matter to the High Court or to the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. There can be no doubt that the Government Agent in this

case was not justified in setting aside the order dismissing the suit for default without giving an opportunity to the defendant to be heard.

The proper remedy of the petitioner is to submit a petition to the Government and it is for the Government if it so chooses to refer the petition to

the High Court for disposal. The present petition must be dismissed with costs.