AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatasubba Rao, J.—A claim was preferred under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P. Code and it was dismissed on account of the non-
appearance of the claimant. On his application the Subordinate Judge restored the petition. The present revision petitions have been filed
challenging the correctness of this order.
Order 21, Rule 63 provides that the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit, but subject to the result of such suit the order shall
be conclusive. It is said that the words "" the order shall be conclusive "" have the effect of precluding an application of this kind being entertained.
No authority bearing directly on the point has been cited and I am not prepared to accede to this contention. If the legislature had intended to lay
down such a rule I should have expected to find very clear language employed to indicate that intention. The words in my opinion do not take
away the right of the party to have the order of dismissal for default set aside. Full effect can be given to the words "" the order shall be conclusive
by holding that an adjudication finally made after the setting aside of the dismissal, is conclusive subject to the result of the suit mentioned in the
rule.
The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs, half of the vakil''s fee in the first and half in the second is allowed.