1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.120/2009. (Smt. Devi Vs. Prithvi Singh) DATE OF ORDER : July 20, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : In this civil revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. judgment and decree dated 16.07.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Barmer in Civil Appeal No.4/2005 is under challenge, whereby, learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2005 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Barmer in Civil Suit No.110/2003 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.24,650/-. The only contention is raised before this Court by the petitioner that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court committed material irregularity and illegality in exercising the jurisdiction and not considering the evidence of the plaintiff's witness Om Prakash who was the then Manager of the Bank. As per learned counsel for the 2 petitioner, though it was an ex parte order but the Court is duty bound to consider the evidence of Om Prakash, the then Manager of the Bank who has categorically deposed that cheque was debited in the bank-account of the petitioner and defendant has encashed the cheque for amount of Rs.17,000/-. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence of Om Prakash was declined to be considered by the Courts below in an irregular and illegal manner which is against the provisions of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (1) WLC 274, Naseem Alam Vs. Mukan Singh & Others, and, submits that as a consequence of setting aside the order of ex parte against defendant, the entire proceedings in the case do not commence afresh in totality from the stage of ex parte decree and the witness examined in defence absence will be made available for cross-examination and this fully indicates that the effect of setting aside the ex parte order or decree is that the party against whom the proceedings has been taken ex parte is relegated to the position which was obtaining prior to passing of the ex parte order or decree. Before such ex parte order or decree was passed such party had right to cross-examine the witness of the opposite side. Strangely enough learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment which is not relevant in the context of the present controversy. Here, in this revision petition, the 3 petitioner is challenging concurrent finding of both the Courts below and emphasizing that statement of witness who was examined prior to passing of the ex parte order was to be considered but it is nowhere stated that the witness was produced after setting aside ex parte decree and the opportunity to cross-examine was given to the defendant. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of both the Courts below because there is no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115, C.P.C. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.