JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - A learned single Judge has referred this case to a Division Bench on the view that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mst. Hummi v. Azizuddin, AIR 1917 All. 475 : 14 All LJ 1226 requires reconsideration. 2. A suit for permanent injunction was fixed for final hearing on 18-1-1973. It was, however, adjourned at the instance of the Defendant to 15-2-1973. On the latter date an application for adjournment by the Defendant was refused. The court proceeded. The Plaintiff examined witnesses. No one appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Thereafter the court fixed 23-2-1973 for delivery of judgment. On that date suit was decreed. 3. The Defendant filed an appeal against the decree. The same was allowed on the view that the trial court should have adjourned the hearing of the suit on 15-2-1973 because there was sufficient cause. The decree was set aside and the suit was remanded for a fresh hearing. 4. The Plaintiff came up to this Court in appeal. It was urged that in an appeal against the decree itself the court had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the question whether the Defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance or whether his application for adjournment should or should not have been allowed. In support, reliance was placed inter alia on Mst. Hummi's case. This case, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable. There the suit was decreed ex parte. The Defendant applied for the setting aside of the exparte decree. He also filed an appeal. The application for restoration was dismissed on the finding that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Defendant appealed against that order as well. 5. Both the appeals were heard together by the lower appellate court. The finding that there was no sufficient cause was affirmed and the appeal against the order dismissing the restoration application was dismissed. Appeal against the decree was also dismissed. 6. The Defendant filed only one second appeal in the High Court. It was against the decree of the lower appellate court's decree. It has to be emphasised that the Defendant did not file an appeal or revision in the High Court against the other order dismissing the appeal against the dismissal of the restoration application. 7. 6. The Defendant filed only one second appeal in the High Court. It was against the decree of the lower appellate court's decree. It has to be emphasised that the Defendant did not file an appeal or revision in the High Court against the other order dismissing the appeal against the dismissal of the restoration application. 7. It is apparent that when the second appeal came up for hearing the decision of the District Judge in relation to the restoration application had be come final. The finding that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance was binding between the parties and in law operates as res-judicata under the general doctrine. It was in that context that the learned Judge hearing Mst. Hummi's case observed that the Defendant cannot have the remedy of applying for restoration and at the same time to raise the same question against the decree itself. It is obvious that the Defendant against whom the finding that he had no sufficient cause for non-appearance had become final could not reagitate the same question in the appeal against the decree. 8. The decision in Mst. Hummi's case cannot, therefore, be treated as an authority for the proposition that in no case the court, while seized of an appeal against an ex parte decree, can go into the merits of the question whether the Defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance. In Sadhu Krishna Ayyar v. Kuppan Ayyangar, (1907)ILR 30 Mad 54 (FB). Levai Sahib v. Ammeenammal, AIR 1924 Mad. 107 the Madras High Court ; in Chandra Mohun Bhadury v. Prafullanada, 32 CWN 101 : AIR 1928 Cal 812 and Sibani Rani Dutta v. Balai Chandra Dutta, (1964) 68 CWN 1064, the Calcutta High Court and in Jethalal Girdhar v. Varajlal Bhaishankar, AIR 1922 Bom. 267 the Bombay High Court, have taken the view that the court hearing the appeal against an ex parte decree can go into the question of non-appearance of the Defendant at the hearing. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Muttangi Ranganayyakamma v. Kuttangi Vankata Mahalakshmi, AIR 1972 A.P. 117 , has also taken the same view. In our opinion the consensus on this point in the country is the better view. 9. The decisions mentioned in the referring order namely Lala Ram Raghubir Lal v. Dip Narain Singh, AIR 1923 All. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Muttangi Ranganayyakamma v. Kuttangi Vankata Mahalakshmi, AIR 1972 A.P. 117 , has also taken the same view. In our opinion the consensus on this point in the country is the better view. 9. The decisions mentioned in the referring order namely Lala Ram Raghubir Lal v. Dip Narain Singh, AIR 1923 All. 287 : 21 All LJ 168 and Syed Mazhar Hussain v. Sheikh Rafiq Hussain, AIR 1925 Oudh 645 have no bearing on the question involved in the present, case. The, case of Syed Mazhar Hussain v. Sheikh Rafiq Hussain (supra), is distinguishable. It followed the decision of this Court in Mst. Hummi's case and in that case also an application for restoration was filed and was dismissed and that order became final. It was held that the question of the jurisdiction for non-appearance could not be raised in appeal filed against the decree. This case is distinguishable for the reason mentioned in respect of Mst. Hummi's case. 10. Our answer to the question referred to us is that it is open to the court hearing appeal against an exparte decree to go into the ground of non-appearance of the defaulting party unless it be debarred from doing so either under the doctrine of res-judicata or any other positive rule of law. 11. Let the papers be returned to the learned single Judge with this opinion and answer.