JUDGMENT : Theappellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 19. 10.2004, passed in M.J.C. No. 5/03. By the aforesaid order, the Trial Court has rejectedthe application of the appellant filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. 2.Plaintiff-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed a suit for recovery against the appellant andother persons of Rs . 1,64,967/-. The plaintiffpleaded that it had granted a loan in favour of thedefendant No. 1. The present appellant, who was defendant No. 2 in the plaint,submitted his collateral security and he was a guarantor of the loan. Thedefendant No. 1 did not pay the loan. Vide a judgment and decree dated3.8.2001, the Trial Court decreed the suit. In the aforesaid suit proceeding,the defendants No. 1 & 3 contested the suit proceeding. The defendant No. 1is the real brother of the present appellant. The Trial Court issued notice byRegistered A.D. post to the defendant of the suit and the acknowledgement wasreceived by the Trial Court and in the aforesaid acknowledgement there wassignature of the present appellant. Copy of the acknowledgement filed beforethe Trial Court as Ex. D/1. Thereafter, one Mr. P.L. Jain, Advocate also filedmemo before the Trial Court and thereafter the present appellant did notcontest the suit and the ex- parte judgment and decreehas been passed on 3.8.2001. When the Bank instituted an execution proceeding,the present appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.mentioning the fact that he was not served and the ex- parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court against him is bad in law. Thathas been rejected by the Trial Court after observing that the appellant hasbeen served and he deliberately did not appear before the Court. 3.From the facts of the case, it is clear that the Trial Court issued summon tothe appellant along with the plaint vide Registered A.D. post. The same wasserved on the appellant and he signed the acknowledgement. Copy of the same hasbeen filed as Ex. D/1 and thereafter Mr. P.L. Jain, Advocate submitted a memo on behalf of the Trial Court on 31.10.1988. Theappellant has contended before the Court that he did not engage Mr. P.L. Jain,Advocate, neither he received the acknowledgement. However, in my opinion, thecontention of the appellant to this effect is afterthought. Apart from this,the defendant No. 1, who had taken the loan is thereal brother. P.L. Jain, Advocate submitted a memo on behalf of the Trial Court on 31.10.1988. Theappellant has contended before the Court that he did not engage Mr. P.L. Jain,Advocate, neither he received the acknowledgement. However, in my opinion, thecontention of the appellant to this effect is afterthought. Apart from this,the defendant No. 1, who had taken the loan is thereal brother. The appellant has been residing adjacent to the defendant No. 1.The suit was decreed in 2001. Hence, it is unimaginable that the presentappellant had no knowledge about the suit proceeding. The Trial Court hasrightly observed that in order to avoid recovery, the present appellant hasfiled the application. Apart from this, this appellant is also filed across-objection in the first appeal before the First Appellate Court againstthe judgment and decree. 4.Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in my opinion, the applicationunder Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. of the appellant has been filed on frivolousground and there is no merit in this appeal. It is a fit case where anappropriate cost has to be awarded against the appellant. Consequently, appealof the appellant is dismissed with a cost of Rs .1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred only).