Short Note : 1. After filing the written statement, Badrilal was absent on one of the dates fixed for hearing. Accordingly an order for the suit to proceed ex-parte against him was passed on 3.7.1972. The defendant-Badrilal then submitted an application on 22.7.1972 for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings but in the meantime, the plaintiff had closed his evidence and the trial Court reserved the case for judgment (See order-sheet dated 13.7.1972). Before the said application dated 22.7.1972 was considered on merits, the defendant- Badrilal, died on 31.7.1972. The learned trial Judge thereafter passed an order on 26.8.1972 whereby he took the view that since the defendant had died after the case was finally heard, though ex-parte, the provisions of Order 22, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code did not make it necessary for any L.R. of the deceased defendant-Badrilal to be brought on record. The suit was accordingly decided on 1.9.1972. On that date the defendant-Badrilal's widow Dhapubai had submitted an application for being permitted to take part in the proceedings but her application was also dismissed in the light of the view taken by the learned Judge in his order dated 26.8.1972. Against the ex-parte decree passed on 1.9.1972 against the deceased Badrilal, his legal representatives Dhapubai and others filed an appeal before the District Court. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard this appeal, took the view that since the fact of the death of the deceased defendant-Badrilal was brought to the notice of the trial Court much before the decree under appeal was passed, it was the duty of the trial Court to pass suitable orders on the application made by Dhapubai on 1.9.1972 and to dispose of the same according to law. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 2. By the aforesaid rule, it has been provided that if the death of either party takes place between the conclusion of the hearing and pronouncing of Judgment, the Judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding the death and such Judgment shall have the same force and effect as if the Judgment has been pronounced before the death took place. 2. By the aforesaid rule, it has been provided that if the death of either party takes place between the conclusion of the hearing and pronouncing of Judgment, the Judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding the death and such Judgment shall have the same force and effect as if the Judgment has been pronounced before the death took place. This rule, therefore, gives a discretion to the Court to pronounce the judgment in the aforesaid circumstances but it is not obligatory that even if the fact of death of either party is brought to the notice of the Court and an application is made by any legal representative of the party who died, then such application should not be considered. In the instant case, the fact that the defendant died was brought to the notice of the Court long before the decree was passed on 1.9.1972. There was another application made by the deceased defendant for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In these circumstances, when the proceedings against the defendant-deceased were ex-parte, there was an application wade by him to set aside the ex-parte decree and after the death of the defendant an application was made by his legal representative for permission to take part in proceedings, then the discretion given to the trial Court under Order 22, Rule 6 of the Code should not have been exercised in the manner in which it was done in this case. The aforesaid rule does not lay down that even if the fact of death of a party is brought to the notice of the Court and an application is made by the legal representatives then also such an application should not be considered on its own merits. Revision dismissed.