ORDER H.G. Mishra, J.—This is defendant's revision against order dated 10th May, 1979, passed by II Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, where by he has been denied opportunity to submit written statement in answer to the suit. 2. The facts essential for decision of this revision are as under: The plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 Shankarlal instituted a Civil Suit No. 32-B of 1976 for recovery of Rs. 2530 against Mangilal and the applicant Ramdayal. This suit was decreed ex parte on 11th May, 1977 against Mangilal and the applicant. 3. Thereafter, only Mangilal (defendant-non-applicant No. 2) submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC read with section 151 on 25-7-1977 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In this application, Ramdayal (defendant-applicant) was also impleaded as non-applicant. This application was opposed by the plaintiff-non-applicant by his reply dated 5-11-1977. Ramdayal, by his reply dated 5-11-1977 supported the application and joined in the request for setting aside ex-parte decree. The case was registered as M. J. C. No. 36 of 1977. By order dated 8-10-1979, ex-parte decree was set aside. Thereafter, by order dated 10-5-1979, in the suit, defendant applicant has not allowed opportunity to file written statement on the ground that the decree will be deemed to have been set aside only against Mangilal and not as against the defendant-applicant Ramdayal, as he had not submitted any application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 4. In this revision, Shri P. R. Goyal, learned counsel for the defendant-applicant contended that once an ex parte decree is set aside in its entirety, all the defendants, whether they had submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC or not, have a right to submit written statement. As such, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. R. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant argued in support of the impugned order. Reliance was placed on the ratio of Mst. Suraj Kunwar Vs. Champalal and Others, 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the revision deserves to be allowed. 6. No doubt, the application under Order 9, rule 13, CPC read with section 151 was submitted by Mangilal, defendant only, yet he had impleaded besides Shankarlal-plaintiff, defendant-Ramdayal in that application. Suraj Kunwar Vs. Champalal and Others, 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the revision deserves to be allowed. 6. No doubt, the application under Order 9, rule 13, CPC read with section 151 was submitted by Mangilal, defendant only, yet he had impleaded besides Shankarlal-plaintiff, defendant-Ramdayal in that application. Ramdayal, as stated above, had filed reply, in which he has also joined in the request made by Mangilal for setting aside ex parte decree. Ultimately, by order dated 8-2-1979, the trial Court set aside the ex parte decree on the condition of payment of Rs. 50 by way of cost and directed payment thereof to be made by Mangilal. Relevant portion of this order is quoted below: NYAYA KE HIT ME PRARTHI PRATlKARA. PRARATHANA PATRA 50/- HAR JANE PAR SWEEKAR KIYA JATA HAI HAR JANA 3 DIN ME JAMA HONE PAR EAK TARFA HATAYA JATA HAI. PESHI 20-2-1979. The construction put by the learned trial Judge on the aforesaid order imports restriction into it, which is not warranted by the language employed therein. Accordingly, when in pursuance of the said order costs were paid, the decree stood set aside in its entirety. 7. Further infirmity which appears to vitiate the impugned order is that the trial Court appears to have kept in mind while passing the impugned order the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13, CPC which run as under: R. 13. In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that there was sufficient cause for his, failure to appear when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also. Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also. Provided also that no such decree shall be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons, if the court is satisfied that defendant knew; or but for his wilful conduct would have known of the date of hearing in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. (Italics ours). The aforesaid rule does not concern itself with effect of an order passed under it, but it concerns itself with the type of order which should be passed, while setting aside ex parte decree. At the time of passing of an order setting aside ex parte decree, the Court may set aside decree as against a person, who had submitted application for setting aside the ex parte decree or may set it aside as against ail the defendants as the case may be. Once rightly or wrongly an order setting aside the decree in its entirety has been passed, the Court cannot go behind it or permit the plaintiff to go behind that order. Accordingly, when by the order dated 8-2-1979, ex parte decree was set aside in entirety, it will be deemed to have been set aside as against all the defendants. I am fortified in the view I am taking by the ratio of the case reported in Kunchan Achari Padmanabhan Achari Vs. Yohannan Thomas, wherein law on the point has been laid down thus: Where out of the three defendants against whom ex-parte decree is passed, it is set aside at the instance of one defendant, then that decree is re-opened not only as against that defendant personally. The object of the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 is to give fresh opportunity to a debtor to reagitate the plaint claim. To allow him to question part only of the ex-parte decree as against him, will amount to withholding with one hand what is granted by the other. 8. The ratio of Suraj Kunwar v. Champalal (cited supra), relied on by Mr. Gupta runs as under: As a general rule an ex-parte decree is to be set aside as against the person making an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 8. The ratio of Suraj Kunwar v. Champalal (cited supra), relied on by Mr. Gupta runs as under: As a general rule an ex-parte decree is to be set aside as against the person making an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. A defendant against whom an ex-parte decree has been passed, should himself come forward and apply for setting it aside. Ordinarily, it need not be set aside on the application of other defendants. The proviso to rule 13 should be confined to cases where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against some defendants only. An example of such a decree is a decree passed in a suit for pre-emption or for redemption. I L R (1953) 3 Raj. 422 : A I R 1954 Assa 183 (F B) , Ref. These principles relate to the stage when a Court sits to pass order under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order deprives illegally the defendant applicant of his valuable right to defend the suit and perpetrates injustice. 10. Before parting, it has to be observed that the learned Judge passing Order dated 8-2-1979 appears to have acted carelessly in drawing out the Order by using the expression "Eak Tarpha Hataya Jata Mansukh Ki Jati Hai." Such use of loose language deserves to be depricated and is hereby depricated. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the defendant-applicant herein will be permitted by the trial Court to file written-statement. Costs of this revision will be paid by the plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1. Counsel's fee according to schedule, if certified.