IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1775 of 2006 ----------- Hardeo Sahu, son of late Narain Sahu, resident of village Bari Aghu, P.S. Mufassil Anchal Sub Registry Subdivision and district Begusarai. …Opp. Party- Petitioner versus Permanand Sah, son of Subi Sahu (deceased), resident of village Gola Chatti Road, Begusarai, P.S. Annchal Sub Registry Subdivision and district Begusarai. … Petitioner-Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioner : M/s Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate, Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Siddharth Harsh, Kaushal Kisahore Mishra & Ritu Priyadarshini, Advocates. For the Opp. Party : M/s Subhash Pandey, Chandra Kant, Ajay Kumar Tiwari and Sandeepan, Advocates. --------- 07/ 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner and learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by sole plaintiff-opposite party-petitioner challenging order dated 21.07.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Begusarai allowed Misc. Case No. 24 of 2001 filed by sole defendant-applicant-opposite party under the provision of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity) for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2001 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 201 of 1994. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party for Accounts and also for dissolution of the firm and recovery of amounts due to the petitioner with interest and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed ex parte by the 2 learned Sub-Judge-I, Begusarai, vide his judgment and decree dated 09.01.2001. 4. Against the aforesaid ex parte judgment, the opposite party filed Misc. Case No. 24 of 2001 under the provision of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte decree passed in the suit. In the said case, the plaintiff appeared and contested, whereafter, the said misc. case was allowed by the learned court below vide its order dated 21.07.2006, against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that both the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings, which were fully considered in detail by the learned court below in its impugned order, whereafter it has come to the specific finding that the evidence of defendant did not stand beyond truth and some contradictions in the evidence were mere minor discrepancies. In the said circumstances, it was held that as per the facts of this case it would be proper that the suit be adjudicated on merits after hearing the parties and giving an opportunity to the defendant to contest the suit. In the said circumstances, the learned court below allowed the miscellaneous case and set aside the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 201 of 1994, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000.00 by the defendant to the plaintiff. 6. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any 3 jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )