Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No. 1/appellant. Also heard Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent.

2. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC read with Order XLIII Rule 2 CPC and Order XLI of the CPC against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 308/2013 in Money Suit No. 117/2004, whereby the learned Civil Judge had rejected the application filed by the defendant No. 1/appellant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 17.09.2009.

4. I.A. 2248/2015 is an application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC read with Order XLIII Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC for stay of the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2009, passed in Money Suit No. 117/2004 as well as for stay of the Money Execution Case No. 7/2012, which was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent.

5. The respondent filed the aforesaid money suit against the appellant and two others, namely, Bhaskar A. Patel, Director of the appellant company as defendant No. 2, as well as M/s. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. as defendant No. 3. The appellant was shown to be represented by its Regional Manager, Shri Sishir Kumar Dutta. The appellant, according to the plaint version, had appointed the plaintiff company as a Consignment Agent in the year 1999 but there was sudden discontinuation of supply of its products to the plaintiff company as a result of which, besides financial loss, plaintiff company suffered loss of reputation and goodwill. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Realization of Rs. 50,63,844.97 (Rupees Fifty lakhs Sixty-Three thousand Eight hundred Forty-Four and paise Ninety-Seven) only.

(ii) Realization of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards damage and compensation for loss of reputation and good will of the plaintiff due to sudden stop of supply of goods by the defendants.

(iii) Future interest @18% per annum on Rs. 50,63,844.97 from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery of the same.

(iv) Cost of the suit.

(v) Any other relief or reliefs to which plaintiff is entitled under the law and equity."

6. From the judgment and decree passed in the said suit, it appears that the learned trial court had decreed the suit ex-parte with cost for recovery of Rs. 41,33,751.00 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the passing of the decree till realization.

7. The appellant had filed an application on 18.05.2013, registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 308/2013, under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2009 stating that summons was not duly served upon the appellant. On 22.04.2013, the Vice-President (Commercial) of the appellant company, namely, P.L. Rapheal was informed by the legal heirs of defendant No. 2 that they had received a notice in Money Execution Case No. 7/12 fixing 02.05.2013 as the date for appearance. In the said application, a plea was taken that Shri Sishir Kumar Dutta had resigned from service of the appellant company way back on 15.06.2003 and that defendant No. 2 had also resigned from the Directorship of the company on 30.06.2005. Taking a cue from the address given for defendant No. 1, i.e. the appellant, which is same as that of the address of the plaintiff, it was asserted that the suit was a collusive suit in between the plaintiff and the said Sishir Kumar Dutta. It is pleaded that summons was not sent to the registered office of the appellant and, that apart, though the plaintiff was directed vide orders dated 11.02.2005 and 28.06.2005 to take fresh steps for issuing summons on, amongst others, the appellant, no such steps were taken by the plaintiff and, yet, on 04.08.2005, a presumption was drawn regarding service of summons on the appella