NARESH CHANDRA AGARWAL vs BANK OF BARODA

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree was erroneous due to improper service of notice. The Court emphasized that the trial court failed to verify the correctness of the service and allowed the substitution application without due diligence. Consequently, the Court set aside the ex-parte decree and remanded the case for fresh consideration, establishing that proper notice is essential for fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.