Short Note : 1. In a suit filed by the applicant-plaintiff the counsel for the non-applicants each of whom was being represented by a separate counsel, reported no instructions on 31-7-1976. The case, therefore, was proceeded exparte against the non-applicants. In the suit that was filed, one Moolchand was also added as a co defendant whose name has been deleted in this revision vide order dated 22-8-1978. That defendant was also being represented by another lawyer. On his request, time to file a written statement was granted till 5-8-1976. On 5-8-1976 neither any of the defendants nor their counsel appeared and so the case was fixed for 21-10-1976 for exparte evidence. On 21-10-1976 the case being exparte the plaintiff examined one witness and closed the case. On the request of the plaintiff's counsel the case was adjourned for arguments on 27-10-1976 on 27-10-1976 an application under O. 9, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was submitted on behalf of defendant No.2 (non applicant No. 1) Shripal for setting aside the exparte order. An affidavit as also a medical certificate in support of this application were also filed. Before this application could be disposed of non-applicant Suraj Prasad also submitted on 14-12-1976 an application under Order 9, rule 7 of the Code. this application was also supported by an affidavit. 2. The two applications, one each on behalf of the two non-applicants were rejected by the following order dated 22-2-1977 :- "Hearing in the case had been closed on 21-10-76. Applications under Order 9 rule 7 CPC can be entertained only if made before close of hearing. The applications are rejected as not maintainable." 3. The trial Judge directed the plaintiff to file written arguments on or before 28-2-1977. The written arguments were filed on 8-3-1977. The trial Judge delivered the judgment on 16-3-1977. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the two non applicants preferred a regular appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad. The lower appellate Court by the impugned order held' that the two separate applications filed by the present non-applicants under Order 9, rule 7 of the Code were maintainable. He then proceeded to examine whether the two non-applicants had a good cause for their non-appearance After consideration he held that illness was a good cause for setting aside the exparte order. He then proceeded to examine whether the two non-applicants had a good cause for their non-appearance After consideration he held that illness was a good cause for setting aside the exparte order. He, therefore, allowed the applications subject to payment of Rs. 25/- as costs by each of the two defendants to the plaintiff. Having so held the judgment and the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case was sent back for re-trial. 5. Held: Learned counsel for the applicant made a two fold submission. The first was that in the appeal the question whether or not an application under Order 9, rule 7 was maintainable could neither have raised nor decided. The second submission was that in any event the Court below could not have decided the application on merits. In support of this submission be relied on two Division Bench decisions of this Court, one in Ramlal Chaurasia and others v. Rewa Coal Field Ltd. ( 1966 JLJ 820 ) and the other in Nagar Palika Nigam Gwalior v. Motilal Munnalal (AIR 1977 MP. 82) 6. What is said is that an appeal against and exparte decree under section 96 (2) of the Code cannot be allowed to be converted into a proceeding for setting aside that decree with the concommitant duty of affording to the parties an opportunity of adducing evidence for and against any ground that may be raised in support of the application. Nor such an appeal be converted into an appeal under Order 43, rule 1 of the Code. The reason is that when a particular remedy is provided for setting aside an exparte decree and there is, by way of appeal another special remedy against an order to set it aside, those remedies and none other must be followed. 7. The fact remains that the order by which the applications filed by the two non-applicants for setting aside the exparte order against them were dismissed is not maintainable was challenged in the appeal before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge not only held the applications to be maintainable but even examined the grounds in support of the applications and allowed the applications. In view of the two aforesaid Division Bench decisions of this Court there could not be any controversy that the Court. The Additional District Judge not only held the applications to be maintainable but even examined the grounds in support of the applications and allowed the applications. In view of the two aforesaid Division Bench decisions of this Court there could not be any controversy that the Court. below in this appeal under section 96 (2) of the Code could not have examined the sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds raised in the applications. The logical conclusion would also be that if such an application is rejected as being not maintainable then that order also cannot be challenged in an appeal under section 96 (2) of the Code. That being so the order of the Additional District Judge that the applications were maintainable and that there was good cause for the non-appearance of the non-applicants is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction He' allowed the appeal on that ground and as stated above sent the case back to the lower Court for re-trial. 1966 JLJ 820 and AIR 1977 MP. 182 relied on. Revision allowed. Case remanded.