1. There is no doubt that the two motions, insofar as they deal with either dismissal or judgment on the pleadings, are based on exactly the same pleadings, are diametrically opposed to each other, and that only the latter is before us on appeal. While the law of the case, at the trial level, has been abolished, orders should not be set aside or modified without just cause (Code ยง 81A-160 (h)) and the burden is on the movant to demonstrate that he is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law. Roberson v. Evergreen Assoc., 134 Ga. App. 881 ( 216 S.E.2d 693) (1975); Mackel v. Sheraton Biltmore Hotel, 137 Ga. App. 444 ( 224 S.E.2d 100) (1976); Grantham Transfer Co. v. Hawes, 225 Ga. 436 (1) ( 169 S.E.2d 290) (1969). 2.
See Stratton McLendon v. Cameron-Brown Co., 140 Ga. App. 430. See Roberson v. Evergreen Associates, Inc., 134 Ga. App. 881 ( 216 S.E.2d 693). The deposition of the defendant taken by the plaintiff fails to accomplish this purpose. 3. Accordingly, the motion of the plaintiff, treated either as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or as a motion for summary judgment, was improperly sustained.
[Cits.]" Roberson v. Evergreen Associates, Inc., 134 Ga. App. 881 ( 216 S.E.2d 693). We intimate no opinion as to the relative merits or lack thereof of the claims or defenses raised by the parties to this action.