1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Kajod & Anr. Versus Smt. Gattu Devi & Ors. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.118/2006 DATE OF ORDER : 05/10/2006 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Rastogi Shri Sudesh Bansal, for petitioners BY THE COURT: Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-decree-holders against the order dated 15th July, 2006 whereby the application filed under O.9 R.13 CPC by the defendants No.2 & 3 was accepted by the learned trial Judge and the ex-parte decree dated 06.05.2006 has been set aside. The petitioners-plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents on 23rd November, 2005. The respondents engaged their counsel who put in appearance and sought time for filing the written statement, but on none than one occasion the written statement could not have been filed and the learned First Appellate Court after showing his presence closed their right of filing the written statement and proceeded ex-parte against them and finally the ex-parte decree was passed on 6th May, 2006. It is not in dispute that within the period of limitation, the defendants filed application under O.9 R.13 CPC for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. 2 Learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the material allowed their application and set aside the ex-parte decree on payment of cost of Rs.500/- under the order impugned dated 15th July, 2006. Counsel for petitioners submits that the defendants were negligent in taking proper care and failed to contact their counsel and since proper instructions were not extended by them to their counsel, no error was committed by the learned trial court in passing the ex- parte decree dated 6th May, 2006. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the counsel. The learned trial Judge has considered the justification which has been referred to by the defendants in their application about the instructions which were extended by them to their counsel and the counsel was present on the date of proceeding but still ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the defendants and this fact has been noticed by the learned trail Judge under the order impugned. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge under the order impugned. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [Ajay Rastogi],J. FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.