MFA 221/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) Heard Mr.B. Choudhury, leaned counsel for the appellant. Money Suit No.52 of 2003 filed by the Respondent-plaintiff was decreed o n 22.8.2005. Thereafter, Money Execution Case No.6 of 2006 was instituted by the decree holder. On 12.9.2007, one Ratan Lal Agarwal, claiming to be the Managing Director of the defendant-judgment debtor Company, filed an application under O rder 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the decree date d 22.8.2005 passed in Money Suit No.52 of 2003. The principal contention of the applicant in the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 was that in the suit p roceeding the defendant-judgment debtor Company was represented by one Vijay Kum ar Agarwal claiming himself to be the Managing Director. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that Vijay Kumar Agarwal was a Director of the defendant-judgment de btor Company and he had contested the suit on behalf of the defendant at all sta ges commencing from filing of the written statement dated 3.1.2004. The learned Trial Court also found that under the provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Director of the defendant Company was authorized to rep resent the Company in the suit. It was not disputed at any stage including in the present appeal that Sh ri Vijay Kumar Agarwal is/was a Director of the defendant Company. If that be so , the aforesaid person, as the Director, was competent and authorized to represe nt the defendant-company in the suit proceeding. That apart, the decree in the p resent case was passed by the learned Trial Court after a full contest in the pr oceedings in the suit. Order 9, Rule 13 provides for filing of an application fo r setting aside an ex-parte decree, whereas in the present case the decree is a inter-party decree after a full contest between the parties. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal for admission of the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed by refusing ad mission. No costs.