https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168836 An order refusing a defendant permission to resume participation under Order IX Rule 7 is an interlocutory step and does not finally determine rights, so it does not operate as res judicata against a later application under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside an ex parte decree. The court's inherent power under Section 151 cannot be used to create a parallel remedy where the Code already provides a complete procedural scheme, and it cannot validate an incompetent earlier application. A decree passed after the suit was heard ex parte, and not on satisfaction of the conditions in Order XVII Rule 3, remains an ex parte decree rather than a decree on merits. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:10:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168836 An order refusing a defendant permission to resume participation under Order IX Rule 7 is an interlocutory step and does not finally determine rights, so it does not operate as res judicata against a later application under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside an ex parte decree. The court's inherent power under Section 151 cannot be used to create a parallel remedy where the Code already provides a complete procedural scheme, and it cannot validate an incompetent earlier application. A decree passed after the suit was heard ex parte, and not on satisfaction of the conditions in Order XVII Rule 3, remains an ex parte decree rather than a decree on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Dec 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168836