JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision application against the order dated November 4, 1977 of the learned Additional Commissioner Faizabad Division dismissing appeal against the order dated May 27, 1977 passed by S.D.O. Sadar, district Faizabad dismissing application dated August 7, 1976 for setting aside ex parte order dated August 6, 1976 by order dated May 27, 1977. 2. On June 15, 1976 in the presence of parties July 22, 1976 was fixed for evidence of the defendant. In the absence of order to proceed ex parte was passed and on August 6, 1976 it was decided ex parte. 3. The applicant gave application on August 7, 1976 supported with affidavit of the applicant and clerk of his lawyer that clerk told him that August 6, 1976 was fixed and on August 6, 1976 it was revealed that the file was at the residence of the officer for orders and in the last the order was passed hence application was moved on August 7, 1976. Plaintiff also gave counter affidavit on September 2, 1976. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The argument on behalf of the respondent that Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was not applicable and Order 16, Rule 20, C.P.C. was applicable therefore, appeal was not maintainable in the Additional Commissioner's Court. This argument has got no force as no such objection was there because the order was passed ex parte and not under Order 16, Rule 20 of the C.P.C. Therefore, against rejection of the application for setting aside ex parte order appeal was maintainable and was heard as appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner. The gaps about dates in the affidavits of the applicant and the clerk of his counsel are not about material dates. They are about dates prior to June 15, 1976. It is averred on oath by the applicant and clerk of his counsel that August 6, 1976 was informed to be that next date, although the date actually was fixed to be July 22, 1976 such slips do occur in rush of work and the affidavit of the clerk and the applicant both about it are important. It is averred on oath by the applicant and clerk of his counsel that August 6, 1976 was informed to be that next date, although the date actually was fixed to be July 22, 1976 such slips do occur in rush of work and the affidavit of the clerk and the applicant both about it are important. They should not be brushed aside lightly and the previous conduct of the applicant or the fact that the suit was pending since 1970 should not have weighted upon the minds of the courts below. In my considered opinion in such cases levying of heavy cost is sufficient to meet the ends of justice instead of blocking the final disposal of case by an ex parte decree and maintaining the ex parte order in view of previous dilatory tactics of a party. 6. In my considered opinion sufficient cause was shown by the applicant by his affidavit coupled with the affidavit of the clerk of his counsel therefore the court below did not approach the matter judiciously. A judicious board view in such matters is warranted, therefore this revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated November 4, 1977 and the order of the lower court dated May 27, 1977 are set aside subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as costs within a month from today and the application dated August 7, 1976 is allowed subject to payment of above costs and the ex-parte decree dated August 6, 1976 is set aside. Costs to be paid within a month from today failing which this revision application shall stand dismissed. The file of the lower court to be sent back to it for proceeding ahead affording opportunity to the defendant applicant to produce his evidence and then to decide the case on merits according to law.