JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - Although I am partially responsible for the form of this reference and the shape in which the question is presented, I am bound to admit, after the further discussion which has taken place, that I do not think it has been very happily worded, having regard to the real question which arises. I am not prepared to say that no order under sec. 89 of the Transfer of Property Act can be made without previous notice to the mortgagor, but, as is obvious from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, the real question is, whether if an order has been made under sec. 87 or sec. 89 without notice to the mortgagors, the Court has or has not power to deal with an application by the mortgagor to set it aside on the ground that it was made ex parte. The Subordinate Judge proceeded upon the footing that the Court had no such power: he did not go into the merits. I respectfully differ from that view. I think that the Court has an inherent power to deal with an application to set aside an order made ex parte, and to set it aside upon a proper case being substantiated. I can find nothing in the CPC to militate against this view. I think, therefore, that the proper course in this case is to send the case back to the lower Court for trial on the merits. The costs will abide the result. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at three gold mohurs for each hearing. It now becomes unnecessary to make any order on the rule. Ghose, J. I agree. Rampini, J. I agree. Stephen, J. I agree. Mitra, J. I agree in the judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice.