Order 9 Rule 6 CPC hearing requires substantive adjudication; mere receipt of a commissioner's report cannot justify ex parte proceedings.

For Order 9 Rule 6 CPC, "hearing" means a substantive judicial sitting where evidence is recorded, arguments are heard, or matters affecting final adjudication are considered. A day used only to receive a commissioner's report, without evidence, argument, or consideration of the suit on merits, is not a hearing for invoking ex parte procedure. On that basis, the proceedings on 29 June 1950 could not justify ex parte action against the defendants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings on the date when the commissioner's report was submitted could be treated as a "hearing" within Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to justify ex parte proceedings against the defendants.

Analysis: The expression "hearing" in Order 9 Rule 6 was held to bear its technical sense, namely a sitting at which evidence is recorded, arguments are heard, or other questions bearing on the determination of the suit are considered. A day on which only the commissioner's report is received and no evidence, argument, or substantive issue in the suit is taken up does not amount to the suit being called on for hearing. Since the proceeding in question was confined to placing the report on the file, it could not support the invocation of ex parte procedure under Order 9 Rule 6.

Conclusion: The proceedings on 29 June 1950 were not a "hearing" within Order 9 Rule 6, and ex parte proceedings could not validly be taken on that date.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "hearing" means a substantive judicial hearing involving evidence, arguments, or consideration of matters necessary for final adjudication, and not a merely ministerial or interlocutory step such as receipt of a commissioner's report.

---