Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the order, dated 21st June, 1968, of the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, by which he rejected an application made by the Appellant for setting aside an ex parte order, dated 2nd May, 1968. It arises out of the following facts:
(2.) THE Respondent (Haryana Financial Corporation) made an application, claiming to recover a certain amount from Messrs Rajdhani Enterprises Ltd., under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereafter referred to as the Act'). The Defendants contested the claim. The evidence of the parties was concluded and the case was fixed for final arguments before the District Judge on 16th April, 1968. Counsel for the judgment -debtors requested for an adjournment, stating that the case would be compromised by the next date. This request was acceded to and the case was fixed for arguments on 27th April, 1968. On this adjourned date, the judgment -debtors or their counsel failed to appear. The District Judge heard the arguments of the Applicant's counsel and adjourned the case to 2nd May, 1968, for announcement of orders. On that day he passed an ex parte order in favour of the Petitioner. On 1st June, 1968, the Petitioner ('decreeholder') took out execution of the order. On the same day, the 'judgment -debtors' made an application for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that there was 'Sufficient cause for non -appearance of the Appellants and their counsel. The District Judge has rejected that application on the ground that the case was decided on merits and it was no use rehearing the arguments of the judgment -debtors. Hence this appeal by the 'judgment -debtors'. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. K.L. Kapur, learned Counsel for the Respondent, that this appeal is time -barred. My attention has been drawn to Sub -section (9) of Section 32 of the Act, which prescribes 30 days' limitation for filing an appeal to the High Court against an order made under Sub -section (5) or Sub -section (7) of Section 32. Viewed in this manner, maintain Mr. Kapur, the appeal is time -barred by 23 days.
(3.) IN reply, Mr. V.P. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the Appellant maintains that the order appealed against does, not fall under Sub -section (5) or Sub -section (7) of Section 32 of the Act, but this is an order made under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, and, as such, was appealable and the period of limitation prescribed for such an appeal is 90 days from the date of the order. Looked at from this angle, says Mr. Gandhi, the appeal was fully within time. He has. also stressed that no objection was taken by the other side with regard to the competency of the application made by him under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte order. It is, therefore, says the counsel, now too late in the day for the Respondent to say that this appeal is filed under Sub -section (9) of Section 32 of the Act and, as such, is time -barred.;