HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5422 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Civil Revision No.64 of 2023, whereby an order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich in Misc. Case No.20/74/2019 has been allowed, as a consequence, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the trial Court and the said order has been affirmed by the revisional Court. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order is that the defendants were aware of the proceedings qua the notices were served, despite the same, they deliberately did not appear and let the matter be set ex-parte which resulted in the ex-parte judgment dated 29.05.2017. 4. It is at a later stage that the defendants had moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with an application seeking condonation of delay. It is urged that once the notices were duly served and the defendants did not appear, hence, they were not entitled to any grant of leverage for getting the ex-parte decree set aside and this aspect has been neither considered appropriately by the trial Court nor by the revisional Court. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and perusal of the material available on record, apparently the ground taken by the defendants in their Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dipak Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner(s) Kanti Kumar Gupta And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was to the effect that they were not served. It was also the case of the respondents that after the death of the plaintiff No.3, notices ought to have gone to the respondents, but in absence of any notice, the respondents were not aware which resulted in ex-parte order. 6. This aspect has been noticed by the trial Court and giving an elastic meaning to the word 'sufficient cause', the application has been allowed on a cost of Rs.500/-. The revisional Court has also been taken note of the aforesaid and affirmed the order. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error apparent on the face of the record for this Court to intervene especially when the two Courts have exercised their discretion in a positive manner, it cannot be said that the order passed by the trial Court or the revisional Court is based on such assumptions which may persuade this Court to interfere. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed, however, it shall be open for the petitioner to contest the proceedings before the trial Court and since the matter is engaging the attention of the trial Court since long, it will be appropriate for the trial Court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting an unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 9. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. September 10, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 5422 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench