D/L. 22. July 9, 2025. MNS. FAT 216 of 2025 + CAN 1 of 2025 Sri Barid Baran Roy Vs. Gopal Banerjee and others Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Mr. Raj Krishna Mondal, Ms. Sunandana Saha … for the appellant. 1. No appeal lies against the impugned order, which is a judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff/appellant’s suit for default. 2. Section 2(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that a “decree” shall not include any order of dismissal for default. 3. Although learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dismissal of default was not for non- appearance but for non-compliance of the trial court’s order, there is no such distinction recognized in the definition of “decree” as stipulated in Section 2(2) of the Code. 4. In any event, a “default” for the present purpose need not be restricted to the non-appearance of the plaintiff but may also pertain to non-compliance of the court’s order. 2 5. Accordingly, FAT 216 of 2025 is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the appellant to prefer an appropriate challenge against the impugned order. 6. CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of consequentially. 7. The learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant is granted leave to take back the certified copy of the impugned order upon furnishing a photocopy of the same for the records. 8. There will be no order as to costs. (Uday Kumar, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)