HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1005303 of 2011 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.04.2010, whereby an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the ex-parte decree was set aside, as well as the order dated 20.08.2011, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application under Order IX, Rule 13 was filed approximately five years after the ex-parte decree was passed, without explaining the reasons for the delay. The counsel drew attention to the ex-parte decree and argued that the defendant had initially appeared in the suit but thereafter stopped appearing. 4. Considering that the suit was filed in the year 1997 and the ex- parte decree has now been set aside, the Court's primary effort should be to ensure that the case is decided expeditiously on its merits after hearing all parties. Although the conduct of the respondent cannot be entirely justified, however, no reasons exists for interference at this stage, as such, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the Suit No. 590 of 1997 expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, and preferably within a period of one year from the date of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.C.Pandey, A.P. Singh Vishen, Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.D.Shahi, R.D. Shahi Ram Kripal Deceased And Ors. .....Petitioner(s) Nagar Palika Ayodhya Through Its President Nagar Palika .....Respondent(s) presentation of a certified copy of this order. 5. The parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today until the final disposal of the case. September 8, 2025 Haseen U. WRIC No. 1005303 of 2011 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench