( 1 ) HEARD counsel.

( 2 ) THE following passage is read out to us by Shri Ramji Sharma appearing for Respondent No. 1, from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Choudhury, AIR 1982 SC 1397 from para 3 of the report :"by enacting the Explanation, Parliament left it open to the defendant to apply under R. 13 of O. 9 for setting aside an ex parte decree only if the defendant had opted not to appeal against the ex parte decree or, in the case where he had preferred an appeal, the appeal had been withdrawn by him. The withdrawal of the appeal was tantamount to effacing it. It obliged the defendant to decide whether he would prefer an adjudication by the appellate Court on the merits of the decree or have the decree set aside by the trial Court under R. 13, O. 9. The legislative attempt incorporated in the Explanation was to discourage a two-pronged attack on the decree and to confine the defendant to a single course of action. If he did not withdraw the appeal filed by him, but allowed the appeal to be disposed of on any other ground, he was denied the right to apply under R. 13 of O. 9. The disposal of the appeal on any ground whatever, apart from i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document