tSu] lnL;-&la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd oknh yk;dflag o Fkkuflag us izfroknh eq- ;keknsoh o vU; 11 izfroknhx.k ds fo:) ,d jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 53 o 188 ds rgr foHkktu ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk okn xzke egnckj uEcj 1 jktk[ksM+k ds lEcU/k esa lgk;d dysDVj] /kkSyiqj eq[;ky; jktk[ksM+k ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;kA lEeu rkehy ds ipkr~ dqN izfroknhx.k us tokc izLrqr fd;k vkSj okn i= esa fy[ks rF;ksa ls bUdkj fd;kA i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vuqrks"k.k lfgr dqy 3 rufd;ksa dh fojpuk dhA oknhx.k us vius okn esa leFkZu esa nLrkosth lk{; ds vfrfjä xokg ih-MCY;w-1 yk;dflag ds c;ku djk,A izfroknhx.k tokc izLrqr djus ds ipkr~ mifLFkr ugha gq, vkSj muds fo:) ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ xbZA i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds ipkr~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; us muds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-3-2002 }kjk oknhx.k dk okn fMØh dj fn;kA mä fu.kZ; o fMØh ls O;fFkr gksdj izfroknh jkelsod] egskpUn] eqjkjhyky] fouksn dqekj ,oa izeksn dqekj us izFke vihy la[;k 177@04 Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] Hkjriqj ds le{k izLrqr dhA vihykFkhZx.k us mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] jktk[ksM+k }kjk ikfjr vfUre fMØh fnukad 29-1-2004 ds fo:) Hkh vihy la[;k 178@2004 Hkw izca/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] Hkjriqj us nksuksa vihyksa dks ,d lkFk lqudj vius ,d gh fu.kZ; fnukad 14-11-2007 }kjk nksuksa vihyksa dks vLohdkj dj lgk;d dysDVj] eq[;ky; jktk[ksM+k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh 11-3-2002 ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] jktk[ksM+k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 29-1-2004 dks ;Fkkor~ j[kkA fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 14-11-2007 ls {kqC/k gksdj vihykFkhZ@izfroknhx.k us izuxr f}rh; vihy jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa izLrqr dhA 2- vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk dh eq[; nyhy gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; dkuwu] fu;e o U;k; ds fo:) gksus ds dkj.k fujLr ;ksX; gSA vihykFkhZx.k fookfnr vkjkth ds fjdkMsZM dkfct dkrdkj gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k vihykFkhZx.k ij uksfVl dh lgh :i ls rkehy ugha gqbZ vkSj muds fo:) ,drjQk dk;Zokgh xyr :i ls vey esa ykbZ xbZA U;k;ky; ds vknsk u gksrs gq, Hkh [kqys edku ij pLikanxh dj vihykFkhZ la- 1 ls 4 ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; us rkehy ekuh] tks dkuwuu xyr gSA 3- vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koäk dh nyhy gS fd vihykFkhZ la- 5 fouksn dqekj vkxjk esa fuokl djrk gS] lEeu ds lkFk nkos dh izfrfyfi ugha Hksth xbZ Fkh] tks fd vkKkRed gSA bl dkj.k mlus lEeu ysus ls euk fd;k] ijUrq fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ml ij rkehy ekudj fu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k] tks fof/k fo:) gSA vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;g dgdj QSlyk ikfjr fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ@izfroknh ij lEeu dh rkehy lgh :i ls ugha gqbZ rks mUgsa fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa vknsk 9 fu;e 13 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr dk;Zokgh djuh pkfg,] ljklj xyr o voS/k gS] D;ksafd ,di{kh; fMØh ds fo:) vihy dh tk ldrh gS vkSj mlesa rkehy ds fcUnq dks ns[kk tk ldrk gSA vius mijksä dFku ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus ,-vkbZ-vkj- 2005 ,-lh- 226 ij Hkjkslk fd;kA vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dh vihy dsoy fe;kn ds fcUnq ij [kkfjt dj nh] tks dkuwuu ugha dh tk ldrh] mUgsa xq.kkoxq.k ij Hkh vihy dk fuLrkj.k djuk pkfg, FkkA v/khuFk vihyh; U;k;ky; esa vihykFkhZx.k us izkjfEHkd fMØh o vfUre ds fo:) vyx vyx vihysa isk dh Fkh] ijUrq v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky us nksuksa vihyksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d gh QSlys ls dj dkuwuh xyrh dh gSA vfUre fMØh tkjh djus ls iwoZ vihykFkhZx.k dks dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k] tks fd vko;d gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ;ksa dks vikLr dj vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy dks Lohdkj fd;k tk,A 4- vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk fuosnu jgk fd f}rh; vihy ds Kkiu esa ftu U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] U;k;ky; mu ij fopkj dj ysaA U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh la[;k ,oa orZeku izdj.k esa muds ykxw gksus vFkok u gksus ds ifjizs{; esa geus vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk ls dgk fd ftu U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dks os vko;d le>rs gS] mudk laf{kr fooj.k nsdj fcUnq dks bafxr djsa] ftl ij vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk us fdlh Hkh U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds lEcU/k esa Li"Vhdj.k u nsrs gq, dgk fd f}rh; vihy ds Kkiu dks i<+dj fu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k tkos] tks mUgsa ekU; gksxkA 5- vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk us iqu% ;g nksgjk;k fd vihykFkhZx.k ij lEeu dh rkehy ugha gqbZ] bl dkj.k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izFke vihy dks ifjlhek ds fcUnq ij fujLr djus esa =qfV dh gSA f}rh; vihy esa rkehy ds fcUnq dks ns[kk tk ldrk gSA 6- geus vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk dh nyhyksa ij euu fd;k o muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- Hkw izcU/k f/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] Hkjriqj us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 14-11-2000 esa Li"V :i ls vafdr fd;k gS fd ^fdUrq i=koyh esa layXu vihyk.V ua- 5 izeksn dqekj dks lEeu fnukad 4-10-1993 dks izkIr gks x;k FkkA mlesa mlus fy[kk gS fd nkos dh dkWih Hksth tkosA vr% nkos dh tkudkjh izeksn dqekj dks lEeu izkfIr ds fnu ls gh gks xbZ FkhA* ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Sunil Poddar & Ors. vs. Union Bank of India & Anr. ¼2008½ lh-,y-Vh- ¼,l-lh-½ esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd % "19. It is, therefore, clear hat the legal position under the amended Code is not whether the defendant was actually served with the summons in accordance with the procedure laid down and in the manner prescribed in Order 5 of the Code, but whether (i) he had notice of the date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) Whether he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff. Once these two conditions are satisfied, an ex parte decree cannot be set aside even if it is established that there was irregularity in service of summons." 8- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us Hkkuw dqekj tSu cuke vpZuk dqekj ¼2005½ 1 ,l-lh-lh- 787 ds iSjk 36] 37 o 38 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd %& 36. However, it appears that in none of the aforementioned cases, the question as regards the right of the defendant to assail the judgment and decree on merits of the suit did not (sic) fall for consideration. A right to question the correctness of the decree in a first appeal is a statutory right. Such a right shall not be curtailed nor shall any embargo be fixed thereupon unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication says so. (See Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385 and Chandravathi P.K. Vs. C.K. Saji (2004) 3 SCC 734 ). 37. We have, however, no doubt in our mind that when an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code is dismissed, the defendant can only avail a remedy available there against viz., to prefer an appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. Once such an appeal is dismissed, the appellant cannot raise the same contention in the first appeal. If it be held that such a contention can be raised both in the first appeal as also in the proceedings arising from an application under Order 39 Rule 13, it may lead to conflict of decisions which is not contemplated in law. 38. If it be held that such a contention can be raised both in the first appeal as also in the proceedings arising from an application under Order 39 Rule 13, it may lead to conflict of decisions which is not contemplated in law. 38. The dischotomy, in our opinion, can be resolved by holding that whereas the defendant would not be permitted to raise a contention as regards the correctness or otherwise of the order posting the suit for ex parte hearing by the trial Court and/or existence of a sufficient case for non-appearance of the defendant before it, it would be open to him to argue in the first appeal filed by him under Section 96(2) of the Code on the merits of the suit so as to enable him to contend that the materials brought on record by the plaintiffs were not sufficient for passing a decree in his favour or the suit was otherwise not maintainable. Lack of jurisdiction of the Court can also be a possible plea in such an appeal. We, however, agree with Mr. Chaudhari that the "Explanation" appended to Order 9 rule 13 of the Code shall receive a strict construction as was held by this Court in Rani Choudhary vs. Lt. Col. Suraj Jit Choudhury (1982) 2 SCC 596 , P. Kiran Kumar vs. A.S. Khadar (2002) 5 SCC 161 and Shyam Sunder Sharma vs. Pannalal Jaiswal (2005) 1 SCC 436 . ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us jkethr o vU; cuke cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w o vU;] 2006¼7½ vkj-Mh-Mh- 3994 ds fu.kZ; ds iSjk 14 esa ;g dgk gS fd % "The Division Bench of this Court delivered the judgment in the case of Chanda (Smt.) & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), on 23.7.2003 and subsequently the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Anr. (supra), on 17.12.2004, whereby the aforesaid controversy has been set at rest and it was held that there is no legal bar to avail both the remedies simultaneously, but while deciding the appeal, the Appellate Court cannot took into sufficient cause for non-appearance, which will include sufficient of service also. The Supreme Court has further held in Para Nos. (supra), on 17.12.2004, whereby the aforesaid controversy has been set at rest and it was held that there is no legal bar to avail both the remedies simultaneously, but while deciding the appeal, the Appellate Court cannot took into sufficient cause for non-appearance, which will include sufficient of service also. The Supreme Court has further held in Para Nos. 37 and 38 of the said judgment that in case an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC is dismissed, then the said Order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code and once such an appeal is dismissed, the appellant cannot raise the same contention in the first appeal and further if it be held that such a as also in the proceedings arising from an application under Order 9 Rule 13, it may lead to conflict of decision which is not contemplated in law. Therefore, in para No. 38 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, it was held that sufficient cause for non-appearance of the defendant is not to be considered in first appeal filed, by him under Section 92(2), CPC. This judgment of the Supreme Court will hold the field." 9- mijksä foospuk ds ifjizs{; esa vihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr ;kelqUnj kekZ cuke iUukyky tloky o vU;] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 2005 ,l-lh- 226 vihykFkhZx.k dks dksbZ enn ugha djrkA vr% vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy cyghu gksus ds dkj.k xzkárk ds Lrj ij fujLr dh tkrh gSA 10- vknsk dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA