This plaintiff's appeal arises out of the suit which the plaintiff had filed for declaration that the land in suit described in Schedule 'ka' with the plaint was the self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff, and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not acquired any right and title in the property by the decree passed in Title Suit No. 13/67. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the land in suit was the self-acquired property of his father late Gopiram, that on the death of his father the property had devolved on him and the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 jointly, and the same was in their possession, but that the defendant No. 1 falsely claimed 1/4th share in the land along with some other ejmali land and had filed Title Suit No.13 of 1967 for declaration of his title to l/4th share, in which an ex-parte decree was passed by suppression of summons. The plaintiff had filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereafter referred as the 'Code' for setting aside the ex-pearte decree but the same was dismissed on 18.1.74. Hence the suit. 3. The proforma defendants Nos. 4 and 5 had filed written stat­ement. The principal defendant along with the defendant No.2 contested on the plea that the suit was barred by resjudicata and was not maintainable. The learned Assistant District Judge had framed two preliminary issues and had decided the same against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went in appeal, and the learned appellate Court below by judgment and decree dated 28.2.81 held that the preliminary issues had been rightly decided by the trial Court, and the appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come in appeal, and Sri D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has reiterated the submissions made before the Courts below. 5. Shrimati B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting defendant respondent has refuted the submissions for the appellant. 6. The view taken by the Courts below was that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff had only alleged that summons in T.S. No. 13 of 1967 had not been served duly on him. 5. Shrimati B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting defendant respondent has refuted the submissions for the appellant. 6. The view taken by the Courts below was that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff had only alleged that summons in T.S. No. 13 of 1967 had not been served duly on him. An ex-parte decree can be set aside by a separate suit on the basis that the' decree was obtained by fraudulent suppression of summons on the part of the plaintiff of that suit. All that the plaintiff had alleged in the present suit amounted at best only to some irregularity in the service of summons, which was within the scope of proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. The Court which had passed the ex-parte decree on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was not satisfied that there was any irregularity in the service of summons and accordingly the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was rejected. No a service of summons is no ground for suit to set aside exparte decree. The preset plaintiff could not re-agitate the same matter by a separate suit for the question raised was decided in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code which decision operates as resjudicata. The view taken by the Courts below, therefore, was sound and this appeal has no merit. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.