1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.94 passed in M.J.C. No. 8/90 by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Durg, rejecting the appellant's application filed under order 9 rule 13 CPC, the appellant has preferred this appeal under the provisions of order 43 rule 1 CPC.

2. The appellant moved an application before the trial Court under order 9 rule 13 CPC inter alia pleading that the summons of the suit were not served upon him as he did not subscribe to daily newspaper 'Desh Bandhu', he had no knowledge that he was said to be served by substituted service, and as he had no 'knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings, the ex parte decree passed against him deserved to be set aside. The application was contested on merits. The appellant in support of his case examined his own-self and also examined one Amrit Pratap Das. The witnesses stated that it was Amrit Pratap Das who informed the defendant about passing of the ex parte decree. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court found that there was no sufficient cause in favour of the defendant to remain absent when the suit was called on for hearing in view of the finding it rejec