ORDER 1. This revision petition has been preferred against order dated 12.5.1995 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Guna. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of tee case in brief are that a suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner which was decreed ex parte. An application purporting to be under O. 9 R. 13 CPC was moved by the revisionist for setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 3.1.95 rejected the application. The revisionist preferred an appeal before the Second A.D.J. Ashoknagar, purporting to be u/s. 96 CPC against judgment and decree dated 8.10.92 passed inasuit No. 4/A/91 and the order dated 3.1.95 passed in M.C.C. No. 492. An application purporting to be u/s. 5, Limitation Act was also made for condonation of delay. The learned lower Court by the impugned order considered the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act and also made observations about the application for setting aside the exparte order but finally rejected the appeal holding that it was barred by time. Feeling aggrieved this revision petition has been preferred by the defendant. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that once an exparte decree is passed and the defendant availed that opportunity by moving an application under O.9 R. 13 and pursued it till its disposal, no appeal against the original decree was maintainable. It was a mistake on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist before the lower appellate Court to have filed a consolidated appeal against the original exparte decree as well as against the order rejecting the application under O.9 R. 13. In reality the learned Court below had no jurisdiction to hear appeal against the original decree as no appeal lay and as no appeal was filed prior to the filing of the application under O. 9 R. 13 CPC and its disposal. The Court had jurisdiction only to dispose of the appeal against the order rejecting the application under O.9 R. 13 which was within time. That appeal should have been decided on merits. The learned Court below, therefore, committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the appeal as barred by time. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of Explanation to O. 9 R. 13 and AIR 1982 SC 1397 (Rani Choudhary v. Lt. Col. That appeal should have been decided on merits. The learned Court below, therefore, committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the appeal as barred by time. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of Explanation to O. 9 R. 13 and AIR 1982 SC 1397 (Rani Choudhary v. Lt. Col. Suraj Jit Choudhary), 1989 (1) MPWN 146 = AIR 1989 MP 224 (Sumera v. Madanlal and others) and 1994 JLJ 110 (Naraindas v. Bhagwandas). 4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had availed of opportunity and had filed a consolidated appeal against the original decree passed exparte as well as against the rejection of application under O. 9 R. 13 CPC. He also moved an application u/s. 5 Limitation Act. The learned trial Court considered the application u/s. 5 and held that there was no sufficient ground. He cannot challenge that order in this revision petition. 5. The facts so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this petition are not in dispute. It is admitted on all hands that an ex parte decree was passed against the revisionist and the revisionist initially did not file an appeal against the exparte decree and preferred to file an application under O. 9 R. 13 and pursued it till its disposal. He, thereafter filed an appeal against the rejection of that application and also challenged the original decree passed exparte purporting to be u/s. 96 CPC. The question to be determined is as to whether an appeal could be considered at that stage against the original exparte decree. A peep to the explanation to O. 9 R. 13 CPC goes to show that a provision has been made therein that where an appeal has been preferred against an exparte decree and it has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, application for setting aside that exparte decree did not lie. The Apex Court in 1982 AIR SC 1397 (supra) considered the impact of this explanation. It was held that an application for setting aside the exparte decree under O. 9 R. 13 was not competent where an appeal against decree was disposed of on ground other than withdrawal thereof. The Apex Court in 1982 AIR SC 1397 (supra) considered the impact of this explanation. It was held that an application for setting aside the exparte decree under O. 9 R. 13 was not competent where an appeal against decree was disposed of on ground other than withdrawal thereof. The Apex Court considered the effect of the amendment made in the C.P.C. in 1976 through which the Explanation was added and observed "The legislative attempt incorporated in the Explanation was to discourage a two-pronged attack on the decree and to confine the defendant to a single course of action." This case has been followed by A Division Bench of this Court in AIR 1989 MP 224 (supra). In 1994 JLJ 110 this Court held as to what were remedies available for setting aside an exparte decree. It was observed that defendant may file an application under O. 9 R. 13 or may prefer an appeal or may pray for review or may institute a suit on ground of fraud. Thus, it was open for the defendant to have availed of any of these remedies. In the present case the defendant preferred to avail of the remedy of getting the ex parte decree set aside by invoking the provisions of O. 9 R. 13 CPC. It is not in dispute that no appeal was preferred against the original exparte decree. The defendant while preferring an appeal against the rejection of an application under O.9 R. 13 CPC in the memo of appeal also challenged the original exparte decree along with the order rejecting the application under O. 9 R. 13. The learned Court below, as mentioned above, considered the application u/s. 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the original exparte decree and dismissed the appeal itself without entering into the main dispute i.e. relating to the challenge made to the order rejecting application under O. 9 R. 13 CPC. It has been held in 1995 (I) MPWN 154 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent that where a remedy under O. 9 R. 13 is available, subsequently no such decree can be appealed against. Thus, a careful consideration of the entire law as well as the explanation appended to the provisions of O. 9 R. 13 go to show that the defendant can avail only one remedy available to him. Thus, a careful consideration of the entire law as well as the explanation appended to the provisions of O. 9 R. 13 go to show that the defendant can avail only one remedy available to him. In the present case he availed a remedy of moving an application under O. 9 R. 13. He could not, therefore, file an appeal u/s. 96 CPC against the original exparte decree. It appears to be a legal mistake on the part of the learned counsel who drafted the memo of appeal wherein he challenged the original exparte decree as well as the order passed under O. 9 R. 13 CPC. The learned Court completely ignored the fact that as the defendant had availed an opportunity, available to him under O.9 R. 13, an appeal u/s. 96 CPC was not maintainable. It was, therefore the duty of the learned Court to have considered the appeal against the order rejecting the application under O. 9 R. 13. To me it appears that the learned Court below as well as the learned counsel conducting the case on behalf of the revisionist both were under a wrong notion. It was the duty of the learned Court below to have considered the appeal against the order rejecting the application under O. 9 R. 13 as the appeal against the original ex parte decree was not maintainable. He had no jurisdiction to entertain that appeal. I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Court below committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the appeal as a whole without considering the appeal against the rejection of the application under O. 9 R. 13. The revision petition must, therefore, succeed. . 6. The revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to dispose of the appeal taking it to be an appeal against the order rejecting the application under O.9 R. 13 after hearing the parties on merits. The order rejecting the appeal as barred by time is of no consequence as the appeal itself was not maintainable against original exparte decree. Costs of this petition shall be borne by the parties under the circumstances of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 1.12.1995.