JUDGMENT Oak, J. - These are two connected First Appeals from two successive orders passed by the trial court on the question of striking out defence on the ground that interrogatories were not answered by the Defendant as ordered by the trial court. The appeals arise out of a suit brought by a firm Dau Dayal Ganga Prasad against the Governor-General-in-Council for damages. On 23rd January, 1948 the Plaintiff served interrogatories upon the Defendant. The court called upon the Defendant to reply to the interrogatories within a month. In compliance with that order the Defendant filed a reply on 23rd February, 1948, answering some of the questions and objecting to others. The Plaintiff moved another application on 13th March, 1948, demanding further answers from the Defendant to the interrogatories issued by the Plaintiff. On 20th March, 1948, the court ordered the Defendant to answer the interrogatories within three weeks. The order dated 20th March, 1948, does not seem to have been complied with by the Defendant. On 12th April, 1948, the Plaintiff moved application No. 48/C requesting the court that the defence of the Defendant be struck out. The application was taken up by the court on 22nd April, 1948. On that day the counsel for the Defendant were absent. The court passed an order on 22nd April, 1948, to the effect that, the defence will be struck off under Order XI, Rule 21, CPC if the Defendant did not give answers within a further period of two weeks. On 26th May, 1948, the Plaintiff brought to the notice of the court that, the Defendant had not answered the interrogatories as directed by the court on 22nd April, 1948, The Defendant put in appearance before the court, and moved two applications. One application was for review of the previous order, and the other application was for permitting the Defendant to appear in the suit. These connected applications were disposed of by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 20th August, 1948. He held that by virtue of the previous order dated 22nd April, 1948, the defence automatically stood struck out as from the expiry of three weeks from 22nd April, 1948. The Defendant filed appeal No. 273 of 1948 against the order dated 20th August, 1948. The Defendant has filed a separate appeal No. 93 of 1949 against the previous order dated 22nd April, 1948. 2. The Defendant filed appeal No. 273 of 1948 against the order dated 20th August, 1948. The Defendant has filed a separate appeal No. 93 of 1949 against the previous order dated 22nd April, 1948. 2. The main controversy involved in these connected appeals is about the interpretation of the lower court's order dated 22nd April, 1948. According to the Plaintiff, the defence automatically stood struck out after the expiry of the period fixed in the order dated 22nd April, 1948. According to the Defendant, the court had to pass a separate order actually striking out the defence. 3. In Gulraj Shroff v. Kaniram Sureka ILR 1938 (2) Cal. 14 it was held that Order XI, Rule 21, CPC contemplates ordinarily the making of two orders: first, an order for discovery or inspection, and secondly, upon default on the pan of the Plaintiff, an order of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. It was further held that there was no difference in the two expressions, 'the suit be dismissed' and 'the suit do stand dismissed'. 4. In Sewratan Vs. Kristo Mohan Shaw and Others, AIR 1922 Cal 320 the order ran as follows: If the money is not paid by the first June, the suit will be dismissed with costs. 5. It was held that a further order was necessary by the court before the suit was dead. 6. In the present case the order dated 22nd April, 1948 ran thus: ...If answers are not made within a further period of two weeks, the defence will be struck off under Order XI, Rule 21 Code of Civil Procedure. 7. It will be noticed that the order dated 22nd April, 1948 merely gave a warning to the Defendant that, his defence was liable to be struck off if he did not answer the interrogatories within the extended period. There was no order to the effect that, the defence would stand struck out in case answers are not given within the prescribed period. There is material difference between an order stating that the defence 'will be struck out' and an order stating that the defence 'will stand struck out'. On the language used in the order dated 22nd April, 1948, it was necessary for the court to pass a subsequent order actually striking out the defence. There is material difference between an order stating that the defence 'will be struck out' and an order stating that the defence 'will stand struck out'. On the language used in the order dated 22nd April, 1948, it was necessary for the court to pass a subsequent order actually striking out the defence. The view expressed by the learned Civil Judge in his subsequent order dated 20th August, 1948 to the effect that there was an automatic striking out of the defence, was erroneous. 8. As regards the merits of the matter, the Defendant explained before the court why he could not appear before the court on 22nd April, 1948. There were two counsel for the Defendant. One counsel could not appear on account of certain domestic reasons. The other counsel, Mr. Mody, was unable to attend the court on that day on account of a railway accident. The explanation offered by the Defendant appears to be reasonable. In these circumstances there was not sufficient ground for striking out the defence under Order XI, Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the result, the two connected appeals are allowed. We set aside the two orders dated 22nd April, 1948 and 29th August, 1948. The Defendant is permitted to appear in the case and to prosecute his defence. The court below will now re-examine the whole question of the interrogatories issued by the Plaintiff and the answers and objections furnished by the Defendant, and then proceed with the suit in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs in these two appeals.