Judgment H. L. Agrawal, J. 1. This application is by the defendant and is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing his application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Ex parte decree was passed in a rent suit on 22-8-68. The decree was put in execution and certain properties of the petitioner were sold on 4-7-72. Delivery of possession has been followed, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous case on 2-12-72 on the ground that the summons had not been duly served upon him. The trail court as well as the court of Apeeal below on appeal filed by him have comparatively held that the summons had been duly served upon the petitioner. 3. In this Court Mr. Jagdish Pandey, appearing in support of this pettion, contended that notwithstanding the said findings of fact recorded by the court below, the ex parte decree is fit to be set aside as it was contrary to the provisions contained in section 49 (m) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which prohibits a court from passing a decree against a Raiyat who is a member of a Scheduled tribe, Scheduled Caste of backward classes with respect to the sale of his tenure or under tenure right. 4. I am afraid the contentions advanced by Mr. Jasdish Pandey are entirely misconcieved inasmuch as in an application under Rule 13 Order IX the validity or correctness of the decree is not called for consideration. The only enquiry which the Court is called upon to make on an application under Rule 13 is to see if the summons was or was not duly served upon or that the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing in the suit when called for hearing. If the defendant concerned challenges an ex parte decree on its merit, his remedy is not by an application under Rule 13 but by way of appeal of review. 5. Mr. Jagdish Pandey could not place any decision in support of the contention that he is entitled to challenge the ex parte decree on its merit as well in this miscellaneous proceeding. I, however, on examining the scope of Rule 13 have no hesitation in holding that his contention is entirely unfounded and must be rejected. The findings of the Court below, regarding the due service of summons on the petitioner was no! challenged. 6. I, however, on examining the scope of Rule 13 have no hesitation in holding that his contention is entirely unfounded and must be rejected. The findings of the Court below, regarding the due service of summons on the petitioner was no! challenged. 6. The application, therefore, has got no substance and must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. The hearing fee is assessed at Rs.36/- only. Application dismissed.