Basheer, J.

1. Appellant who is the defendant in a suit for recovery of money has filed this appeal against the ex parte decree passed against him by the trial court.

2. This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge doubting the correctness of the decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Bava alias Asees v. Madhavan & Ors. ((1995) 2 KLJ 706).

3. In the above decision the learned single Judge took the view that in an appeal against an ex parte decree the appellant is not entitled “to ask the appellate court to accept the appeal on a ground which he could urge in an application under Rule 13 of Order IX and request for remand of the suit for re-hearing”.

4. To put it differently, the learned Judge held that in such instances the appellate court can consider the case only on its merit or on any question of law arising therefrom. The question whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of the appellant before the trial court would be beyond the scope of enquiry by the appellate court. The learned Judge held that the appellant not having chosen to take recourse to the remedy available to him under Rule 13 of Order IX