N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Misc. Appeal under order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure arises out of the order dated 23-11-1998, passed by Addl. District Judge, Biaora, in m. J. C. No. 2/97, dismissing appellants' application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside preliminary decree dated 21-12-1993, and final decree dated 27. 3. 1997, passed ex-parte against late krishnadas Acharya, in Civil Suit No. 3-B/92. ( 2 ) THE suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by respondent No. 1, the State Bank of indore against late Krishnadas Acharya and five others for recovery of loan and sale of mortgaged property. Late Krishnadas Acharya was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the suit: He and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 Vishnudas and shivnarayan were impleaded as guarantors for the loan in question which according to the plaintiff was raised by respondent No. 2, m/s. Shakti Cables and Wires which was arrayed as defendant No. 1. Respondent No. ( 3 ) SMT. Sadhna Acharya and No. 4, Durgadas acharya, the wife and husband, are partners of the said firm and were arrayed as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. Durgadas Acharya is the son of late Krishnadas Acharya. 3. The suit was originally instituted and prosecuted in the Court of District Judge, rajgarh. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 (the respondent nos. 2 and 4 herein) remained ex pane while other defendants including late krishnadas Acharya put in their appearance and filed written statements through their counsel. On 24-4-1992, the case was received on transfer in the Court of Addl. District Judge, camp Biaora, a Sub-Divisional Headquarter of District Rajgarh. The transferee Court on 24-4-1992 directed for issuance of notice to defendant Nos. 2. 4, 5 and 6. No notices were, however, issued to defendants No. 1 and 3 who were ex-parte since before. The respondent defendant Nos. 5 and 6 alone appeared before the transferee Court. Defendant-respondent No. 3, Smt. Sadhna Acharya and defendant No. 4, late Krishnadas Acharya did not appear and the Court below after holding that the notices have been served duly on them proceeded ex-parte against them. Ultimately a preliminary decree was passed on 21-12-1993. The respondent defendant Nos. 5 and 6 alone appeared before the transferee Court. Defendant-respondent No. 3, Smt. Sadhna Acharya and defendant No. 4, late Krishnadas Acharya did not appear and the Court below after holding that the notices have been served duly on them proceeded ex-parte against them. Ultimately a preliminary decree was passed on 21-12-1993. An application to set aside this preliminary decree was made by late Krishnadas acharya on 21-12-1993 but the same was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code to set aside a preliminary decree was not maintainable. Krishnadas Acharya died on 28-12-1994. Final decree in the suit was passed on 27. 3,1997. ( 4 ) THE present application under Order 9, Rule, 13 of Civil Procedure Code was made by the LRs. of late Krishnadas Acharya on the grounds that late defendant was seriously ill: that he never received summons of the suit; and, that no Counsel was engaged by him nor any written statement is filed on his behalf. It was further averred that no notice after the transfer of the suit to A. D. J. Biaora was ever served on him. The application was resisted by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and all the allegations made in the application were denied. ( 5 ) THE Court below after recording evidence of the parties and on evaluation thereof concluded that not only summons of the suit were duly served on late defendant Krishnadas acharya but notice after transfer of the suit was also served on him and that he had full knowledge of the proceedings of the suit in the transferee Court. On these findings the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 23-11-1998 impugned in this appeal. ( 6 ) I have heard Mr. M. G. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for appellants and Mr. B. L pavecha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with mr, Yogesh Mittal for plaintiff-respondent no. 1. ( 7 ) RULE 13 of Order IX, Civil Procedure code lays down the procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree against defendant. Only two grounds on which ex-parte decree can be set aside are : non-service of summons or non-appearance for sufficient cause. Curiously enough, the appellants in the instant case are seeking the relief on both these grounds. ( 7 ) RULE 13 of Order IX, Civil Procedure code lays down the procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree against defendant. Only two grounds on which ex-parte decree can be set aside are : non-service of summons or non-appearance for sufficient cause. Curiously enough, the appellants in the instant case are seeking the relief on both these grounds. According to them, summons of the suit were never served on late Krishnadas Acharya who never put up his appearance in the suit either in person or through Counsel nor filed any written statement. It is further averred that after transfer of the suit to A. D. J. Court, Biaora, no notice of transfer was ever served on late defendant. It may be noted here that late krishnadas Acharya in his earlier application made on 21-12-1993 under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code and the affidavit filed in support there of had also made similar allegations. In fact the present application filed by his LRs is nothing but mere repetition of the earlier application filed by the deceased himself. ( 8 ) TAKING the first ground ( of non-service of summons)first, the allegation is found to be ex-facie false. The proceedings of the case of D. J. , Rajgarh, dated 30-3-1990 to 5-3-1992 i. e. , before the case was transferred to A. D. J. Court would show that late defend-ant Krishnadas Acharya alongwith his daugh-ter-in -law Smt. Sadhna Acharya (the defendant No. 2 )had not only put up their appearance through Counsel Mr. H. B. Vyas but also filed joint written statement duly verified under their own signatures. No evidence whatsoever is led by the appellants beyond making wild sweeping allegations in the two affidavits filed alongwith the application. Court proceedings are sacrosanct and are presumed to be correct unless contrary is shown. Late defendant krishnadas Acharya and his LRs. have obviously made false allegations in their applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code and also sworned false affidavits in support of their applications. It is a very serious matter which in my opinion is sufficient by itself to throw away this application which appeared to be false in its entirety. have obviously made false allegations in their applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code and also sworned false affidavits in support of their applications. It is a very serious matter which in my opinion is sufficient by itself to throw away this application which appeared to be false in its entirety. ( 9 ) COMING to the second ground i. e. , "non-appearance for sufficient cause", this ground when considered in the backdrop of what is said above also appeared to be a mere pretext to frustrate the decree. Although appellants bhagwatidevi Acharya ( P. W. I ), the widow of the deceased and Sanat Kumar acharya ( P. W. 2 ), the son of the deceased, have been examined in evidence to depose that no notice of the transfer of the suit was ever served on or any information about the Court proceedings at Biaora was ever received by late krishnadas Acharya, however, their interested and negative testimony inspired little or no confidence. As against it. Court Bailiff ramprasad ( D. W. 1 ) has emphatically stated on oath that on 16-2-1993 notice Ex. A-1 was taken by him to late Krishnadas Acharya who was lying in a bed in his house; that it was read over and explained to him; and, that it was received on his behalf by one of his two sons who alongwith their mother were present inside the room. His testimony which is wholly independent and unbiased finds full corrobo-ration from the service report appended by him on the back of Ex. A-1 signed by the son of the deceased and attested by a Panch witness. It is true that name of the son who received the notice is not mentioned in the service report, but that hardly makes any difference. Appellant No! 2, Suryakant and No, 3 Sanat kumar are the only sons of the deceased of which Sanat Kumar alone appeared in the witness box. Suryakant was not examined in evidence despite a clear suggestion made in the cross- examination of Suryakant that the notice Ex. A-1 bears signature of Suryakant. ( 10 ) LATE defendant Krishnadas Acharya can be presumed having knowledge of the suit even otherwise. As already pointed out, he was contesting suit in D. J. Court since beginning and had also engaged a Counsel to defend. A-1 bears signature of Suryakant. ( 10 ) LATE defendant Krishnadas Acharya can be presumed having knowledge of the suit even otherwise. As already pointed out, he was contesting suit in D. J. Court since beginning and had also engaged a Counsel to defend. Surely, he or his Counsel must have kept track on the progress of the suit and were bound to know about the transfer of the suit by the district Judge to his Additional Judge. ( 11 ) DEFENDANT No. 2, Smt, Sadhna acharya is the daughter-in-law of deceased defendant No. 4 and lived jointly with the latter in the same house. They had filed joint written statement in the suit. The notice of transfer of the suit was served duly on Smt. Sadhna Acharya. There was no reason why the daughter-in-law would not inform the father-in-law about the tranfer of the suit to a. D. J. Court. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Sadhna Acharya also did not appear in the a. D. J. Court after transfer of the suit. Obviously, both these defendants deliberately abstained from the Court proceedings after transfer of the suit. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT No. 5 Vishnudas Gupta has also appeared in the witness box and stated that after transfer of the suit to Biaora, he had met Krishnadas Acharya and discussed the matter with him. He also, therefore, lends corroboration to the fact that Krishnadas Acharya had knowledge about the proceedings going on in the Court of A. D. J. , Biaora after transfer of suit to that Court. ( 13 ) FROM the foregoing discussions, it therefore inevitably follows that no sufficient cause for non-appearance in the Court of a. D. J. after transfer of the suit, was made out. The finding recorded by the Court below in that behalf is well founded calling for no interference in appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed, .