Ex parte payment orders under company law may be challenged under civil procedure, not as decrees subject to ex parte decree limitation.

An ex parte payment order under the Companies Act may be set aside by the court of original jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, including its inherent powers, where the statute contains no express contrary procedure. Section 169 of the Indian Companies Act was treated as inapplicable because it concerns rehearing in appellate jurisdiction, not the setting aside of an ex parte order. The payment order was also held not to be a decree, since an appeal lay from it as from an order; accordingly, Article 164 of the Limitation Act for ex parte decrees did not apply. The operative framework was therefore Order IX rule 13 read with sections 141 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application to set aside an ex parte payment order under the Companies Act was maintainable before the court of original jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code and its inherent powers. (ii) Whether the payment order was a decree so as to attract Article 164 of the Limitation Act, and whether section 169 of the Indian Companies Act applied.

Issue (i): Whether an application to set aside an ex parte payment order under the Companies Act was maintainable before the court of original jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code and its inherent powers.

Analysis: Section 169 of the Indian Companies Act was held not to govern petitions for setting aside ex parte orders, because the power of rehearing contemplated by that provision belongs to appellate jurisdiction and does not furnish the proper remedy for an ex parte order. In the absence of an express provision in the Companies Act, the court of original jurisdiction, being a civil court, was held to be governed by the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as made applicable by section 141, and also by its inherent power under section 151. The proper course was treated as proceeding under Order IX, rule 13, mutatis mutandis.

Conclusion: The application was competent before the court of original jurisdiction, and section 169 of the Indian Companies Act did not apply.

Issue (ii): Whether the payment order was a decree so as to attract Article 164 of the Limitation Act, and whether section 169 of the Indian Companies Act applied.

Analysis: The payment order was held not to be a decree because section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code excludes from the definition of decree an adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order. Since an appeal lay from the payment order, Article 164, which governs applications to set aside ex parte decrees, had no application. The Court also affirmed that section 169 of the Indian Companies Act did not govern such an application.

Conclusion: The payment order was not a decree, Article 164 of the Limitation Act did not apply, and section 169 of the Indian Companies Act was inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal was upheld, and the respondent succeeded because the challenge to the ex parte payment order was not barred in the manner contended for by the appellant and was maintainable only under the general civil procedure framework.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte order under the Companies Act may be set aside by the court that made it under the Civil Procedure Code and inherent powers, but it is not a decree where the statute treats it as an appealable order, and therefore the limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree does not apply.

---