This revision petition arises from the order dated 29.3.85 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta, in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1984, affirming the order dated 14.9.84 passed by the learned Munsiff Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No. 16 of 1984. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The plain­tiff respondent instituted T.S. 23 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Munsiff (1) Barpeta against the defendant-petitioner clai­ming, inter alia, for declaration of title to and interest in the suit land. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Mun­siff (II Barpeta. The suit was again transferred to the Court of the Munsiff (I) Barpeta. On 16.6.83, the learned Munsiff (I)- ordered that the advocates of the parties are to be informed. On 20.8.83 and 19.11.83, the Advocates for the parties appea­red before the learned Munsiff (I). On 19.11.83, the suit was fixed for hearing on 23.12.83. On that day the plaintiff was ready with 3 witnesses but the defendant and his lawyer were absent. The learned Munsiff adjourned the case till 2.2.84 for hearing of the suit ex parte. On 2.2.84, the defendant and/or his lawyer did not appear and the learned Munsiff decreed the suit ex parte against the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-petitioner filed Misc. (J) case No 16 of 1984' under O 9 R 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree and for restoration of the suit (T.S. No. 23 of 1984) on the ground that he did not receive any notice of the hearing of the suit after trans­fer. The learned Munsiff dismissed the petition under the order dated 14.9.84. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1984 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta. On 29, 3.85, the learned Assistant District Judge dismissal the appeal; hence this petition before this Court. 3. The point for determination formulated by the learned Assistant District Judge is : Whether there was due service of summons or there was sufficient cause for non-appearance at the hearing". The learned Assistant District Judge has held that notices were issued to the parties through their lawyer. Accor­dingly, the learned counsel of both sides appeared before his Court on 20.8.83 and 19.11.33. In presence of the advocates the date for hearing was fixed. The learned Assistant District Judge has held that notices were issued to the parties through their lawyer. Accor­dingly, the learned counsel of both sides appeared before his Court on 20.8.83 and 19.11.33. In presence of the advocates the date for hearing was fixed. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the defendant that no notice was ser­ved on defendant is not tenable. 4. Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below have come to the conclusion on the ground that the service of the notice on the defen­dant's lawyer was sufficient service on the defendant. But the Courts below have not considered whether the lawyer, infact, communicated the dates to the defendant. 5. Mr. D. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respon­dent, has submitted that the contention of the petitioner is not tenable and that an application for setting aside ex parte decree can be maintained only on the grounds enunmerated in the O 9, R 13 C.P.C. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention to the decisions reported in Arnu Narayan vs. M\s. Bharat Airways Ltd., AIR 1961 Assam 47 (DB) and Mangaldoi Tea. Co. vs. Md. Abdul, AIR 1977 Gau 51 . 6. In Arun Narayan vs. MIS Bharat Airways Ltd., AIR 1961 Assam 47, it has been held : "The provision is exhaustive in character and even the inherent jurisdiction of the court may not be resorted to for setting aside an ex parte decree for reasons other than those stated in the rule". 7. In Mangaldoi Tea Co. vs. Md. Abdul "On no ground other than those enumerated in 0.9 R. 13 of the Code a court can set aside an ex parte decree. For setting aside the decree, the applicant must satisfy the court that (i) the summons was not served or that (ii) he was prevented by any sufficient cause from app­earing in court when the suit was called on for hearing." 8. Mr. Goswami has not disputed the proposition of law which has been laid down by this Court. Mr. Goswami's submi­ssion is that there is a presumption under O 3, R 5, CPC. But the presumption is a rebattable one and that the case of the petitioner is that his lawyer did not communicate the date of hearing to him. 9. Mr. Goswami has not disputed the proposition of law which has been laid down by this Court. Mr. Goswami's submi­ssion is that there is a presumption under O 3, R 5, CPC. But the presumption is a rebattable one and that the case of the petitioner is that his lawyer did not communicate the date of hearing to him. 9. O 3, R 5, CPC runs : "Any process served on the pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court for any party or left at the office or ordinary residence of such pleader, and whether the same is for the personal appearance of the party or not, shall be presumed to be duly communicated and made known to the party whom the pleader represents, and, unless the Court otherwise directs shall be as effectual for all purposes as if the same had been given to or served on the party in person." 10. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act provides : "May presume". - Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such facts as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it ; "Shall presume". - Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved : "Conclusive proof" - When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. 11. The expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" have been defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. The ex­pression "may presume" is presumption of fact and that "shall presume" is presumption of law. Under 0.3 R. 5 CPC where it is proved that the process has been served on the pleader, then the presumption shall at once arise, as provided thereunder. The presumption under O. 3 R. 5 CPC is an artificial pre­sumption. Therefore, it is a presumption of law. The presump­tion under Section 4 of the Evidence Act and in that O. 3 R. 5 CPC is presumption of the existence of a fact. The presumption under O. 3 R. 5 CPC is an artificial pre­sumption. Therefore, it is a presumption of law. The presump­tion under Section 4 of the Evidence Act and in that O. 3 R. 5 CPC is presumption of the existence of a fact. Therefore, the meaning of the expression '«shall be presumed" used in O. 3 R. 5, CPC shall have the same meaning as that of the ex­pression "shall presume" in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. In this view of the matter, the presumption under O. 3 R. 5, CPC is rebattable presumption. This view of mine finds support from the decision in Pulin vs. Rajendra, AIR 1972 Gauhati 25. In that case it has been held. "To sum up we are of the decided opinion that Rules 5 does not raise a conclusive presumption, that it is open to the client concerned to establish by appropriate evidence that a process served on his pleader had not been commu­nicated to him and that if he succeeds in establishing that fact the Court may proceed on the basis that the service had not been effected on the client. Rule 5 comprises a provision of procedural and not of substan­tive law. All procedural laws are meant to subserve the interests of justice and not to frustrate the trial of cases on merits." 12. In the present case, the Courts below were of the view that service of process on the pleader was sufficient service as provided under O. 3, R. 5, CPC. As already held, the pre­sumption under O. 3, R. 5 CPC is a rebuttable presumption. The petitioner's case is that he had not received the notice for hear­ing of the suit. In other words, the lawyer of the defendant received the notice of hearing but the date was not communi­cated to the defendant by his lawyer, therefore he did not re­ceive the notice of the hearing of the suit. If the lawyer of the defendant did not communicate to the defendant the date of hearing of the suit, it will come within the ambit of O.9 R. 13 CPC. The Courts below have not discussed this aspect of the matter. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Courts be­low are set aside. If the lawyer of the defendant did not communicate to the defendant the date of hearing of the suit, it will come within the ambit of O.9 R. 13 CPC. The Courts below have not discussed this aspect of the matter. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Courts be­low are set aside. The case is sent back to the learned Munsiff (I) Barpeta for making an enquiry into the question whether the learned lawyer for the defendant communicated the direction given by the Court and/or the date of hearing of the suit of the defendant-petitioner. With the above direction and obser­vation the petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.