applicability of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall have to be tested. The Rule was amended by the State of Maharashtra, which provides that in any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served or that there was sufficient cause for his failure to appear when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit. In plain terms, thus, a right under Order IX Rule 13 is granted in favour of a person who is a defendant. We are not oblivion to certain judicial decisions expanding such right in favour of non-defendant also. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of Surajdeo vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad & Ors.1 had taken a view that the petitioner in that case was vitally interested in the decree passed in favour of the contesting parties which he wanted to be vacated. It was held that if the decrees in favour of the contesting opposite parties remain intact, the petitioner’s right of irrigating his
