Short Note : On an application made by the plaintiff under Order 38, rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court made an order requiring the defendants to furnish certain security. The defendants admittedly failed to furnish that security. On that default being committed, the impugned order dated 11-3-1976 was passed to the effect that even though the defendants were present, the trial Court decided to proceed ex-parte on that day and to record ex-parte evidence in the suit on the next date of hearing to which the suit was adjourned. Shri Tamaskar contends that there was no power in the trial Court to make such an un usual order precluding the defendant from participating in the suit from that stage. Shri A. K. Khaskalam, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant, fairly concede that the impugned order dated 11-3-1976 was made without any authority. He is unable to point out any provision of law which could justify the making of the impugned order dated 11-3- 1976. 2. The result, therefore, is that the trial Court's order dated 11-3-1976 is set aside. The trial Court shall now proceed with the case from that stage in accordance with law. In the circumstance of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Revision allowed.