We are of the view that the Division Bench was justified in allowing the applications filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and, in consequence, was justified in setting aside the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 passed in O.S. No.131/1999 treating the said decree as "ex parte decree".
Finding on the question of sufficient ground for setting aside of the ex parte decree is concerned, suffice it to say, it being a pure question of fact, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. A finding on such question is binding on this Court. Moreover, we find that the Division Bench imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/on defendant No.1 payable to the plaintiff as condition for setting aside the ex parte decree. Defendant No.1, therefore, must pay the cost to the plaintiff.
Since the original plaintiff has died and his legal representatives are already brought on record in these appeals, the Trial Court will permit the plaintiff to amend the cause title in the plaint and bring on record the legal representatives(appellants herein) to enable them to prosecute the suit on merits in accordance with law. ...G. Ratna Raj =VS= Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd., (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 37] ....View Full Judgment

Sub-sections (2)(3) and (4) of section 19 of the Ain is that if a proper application is made by the defendant for setting aside an ex parte decree in accordance with law a right accrues to the defendant to have the ex parte decree set aside. In the present case the only point in issue is whether or not the defendant filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree within the time stipulated by law. Admittedly miscellaneous case was not filed within 30 days from the date of the decree. Whether or not it was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree is a matter to be decided with the help of evidence, adduced by the parties. It is our considered view that the view taken by the High Court Division that the appellant had knowledge through her constituted attorney is absolutely misconceived since knowledge of any party to the suit is a matter personal to that party. Knowledge can only be ascertained upon taking evidence. There is no evidence on record to indicate that even the attorney was examined to ascertain whether or not this defendant had received notices of the suit. The judgement and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. The artha rin miscellaneous case is sent back to the Artha Rin Adalat, First Court, Chittagong, where the appellant (defendant No.8) is to be given an opportunity to prove her knowledge as contemplated in section 19(2)of the Ain by adducing evidence. The Artha Rin Adalat is directed to dispose of the miscellaneous case within four months of receipt of this judgement. .....Dilruba Morshed (Mrs.) =VS= Artha Rin Adalat, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 104] ....View Full Judgment

When Title Suit (No.46 of 1991) was decreed ex-parte and a suit was filed for setting aside the said ex¬parte decree, the question of rejection of the plaint of the suit did not arise at all. .....Md. Noor Hossain & others =VS= Mahbuba Sarwar & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 341] ....View Full Judgment

Ex-parte decree –
An ex-parte decree will be set aside if it is found that there was no service of summons on the defendant– Process server most examine by the Court, but in the instant case the process server was not adduced to examine by the Court, even then, the trial Court found from record that there are some anomalies in the serving of the summons– In a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree, in a case of service by hanging because of alleged refusal by the plaintiff appellant to receive notices, where the names and addresses of the mukabila witnesses were not noted in the service reports by the process server, it is the settled principles of law from the long line of catena, obviously process server most examine by the Court, but in the instant case the process server was not adduced to examine by the Court, even then, the trial Court found from record that there are some anomalies in the serving of the summons, such facts would lead to disbelieve the service which is devoid of the essential information as requires by law. But the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division failed to appreciate the above legal proposition. Thus, committed serious error of law point occasioning failure of justice. The judgment of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. Directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within 1(one) year from the date of receipt of this judgment positively. ...Azirun Nessa(Most.) =VS= Sree Arun Chandra Biswas, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 332] ....View Full Judgment