THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.2086 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The first respondent filed O.S.No.162 of 1993 in the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against respondents 2 to 4 and the appellant herein for recovery of certain amount. The second respondent is said to be the principal borrower, and respondents 3, 4 and the appellant, the sureties. The suit was decreed on 10.10.2000. The appellant filed I.A.No.4 of 2001 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 10.10.2000. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 28.02.2001, on the ground that the suit was decreed on merits and an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. does not lie. The appellant challenges the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Notice sent to the respondents is not served. The appellant states that he was not served with summons and he came to know about the decree when one of the Officers of the first respondent bank informed him about the liability as guarantor. The appellant does not dispute that the suit was decreed on merits. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. can be filed only when the decree is ex parte. Even assuming that he was set ex parte, he could have invoked Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. before the suit was disposed of. Once a suit is decreed on merits, the only alternative for the appellant was to file a regular appeal. One factor which disables the appellant to get any remedy is that the appeal was pending for the past eight years and there was no order of stay in his favour. By this time, the decree in the suit may have been executed, whether against the principal debtor or the sureties. Viewed from any angle, nothing survives in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.08.2009 kdl