( 1 ) ). A short but interesting question which has come up for adjudication in this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Code for short) is Whether an appeal is competent from an order granting an application for an order to set aside the decree passed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code ?

( 2 ) ). The petitioner is the original defendant against whom the respondentoriginal plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1983 in the court of Civil Judge (J. D.) at Valsad for possession of the rented room. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arraigned in the plaint for the sake of convenience and brevity.

( 3 ) ). In the suit summons could not be served by the plaintiff on the defendant despite several attempts. Therefore the plaintiff had requested the court to serve the defendant with summons by substituted service. The Trial Court had granted such request of the plaintiff and the defendant was served by substituted service. Therefore the case proceeded and the suit was decreed ex parte.

( 4 ) ). The original-defendant came to know about passing of the ex parte decree. Therefore he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code on the ground that there was not service of summons as required by law and. therefore the ex parte decree is illegal. He also inter alia contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the demised premises is also false frivolous illegal and taking advantage of the absence of the defendant from Valsad for religious purpose as he being a priest he had to go out the summons was falsely said to have been served by substituted service.

( 5 ) ). After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances and the application for restoration for setting aside ex parte decree being Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 1983 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code the Trial Court quashed the ex parte decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1983. Thus Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 1983 to set aside the ex parte decree came to be granted by the Trial Court on 5-3-1987 by allowing the said application Being aggrieved by the said order granting application for setting aside the decree passed ex parte the original plaintiff preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1987 in the District Court of Valsad at Navsari.

( 6 ) ). Upon hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances the learned Extra Assistant Judge allowed the appeal and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Valsad below restoration application No. 37 of 1983 by which he had set aside the ex parte decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1983 was quashed and set aside. In short the application for restoration and for setting aside the ex parte decree made by the original defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code came to be rejected in and appeal.

( 7 ) ). Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1987 by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Valsad at Navsari the original defendant has preferred this revision under Section 115 of the Code.

( 8 ) ). After having examined the facts and the circumstances and the relevant provisions this court has no hesitation in finding that the appeal was not competent before the District Court. It is very clear from Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Code that against an order under Order 9 Rule 13 rejecting an application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte an appeal is provided. It means that if such an application for setting aside ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 is allowed as it was done by the Trial Court By allowing Restoration Application No. 37 of 1983 filed by the defendant appeal does not lie. A specific statutory remedy is provided by the Code for setting aside an ex parte decree. It is not without significance that under Order 43 Rule 1 an appea