( 1 ) MR. N. C. Shah learned advocate of the appellant has raised two contentions- (1) that a suit to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud in the service of summons is not maintainable; and (7) that on the facts of the case the fraud alleged in the plaint is not proved. Mr. Shah was urged that a suit is not competent to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground that the service of the summons in the suit was improperly effected as a result of which an ex parte order was passed by the court which passed the decree and the only remedy available to a judgment-debtor in such a case would be to make an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been urged that Order 9 is a self-contained provision to cover all sorts of cases where an ex parte decree could be set aside and it would therefore not be permissible to a litigant to reagitate a cause that has already been elected once by a competent court save by resorting to that provision. It is said that Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days from the date of the defendants knowledge of the decree in cases where