JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member. - This is a revision filed by Smt. Sura against the order dated 21.2.1980 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in which the revisionist appeared filed vakalatnama and also written statement. A plea was taken by the defendant that the matter was pending before the Hon'ble High Court in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. regarding the land in suit and therefore he prayed for the stay of the suit on 24.7.1975. The suit was ordered to be stayed by the trial court On 8.8.1975 the plaintiff moved an application that the order dated 24-7-75 was passed behind her back therefore the case be reopened. On 15-11-75 the defendants appeared and put in another vakalantnama and filed objection on 18-12-1975 opposing to the reopening of the case. After hearing the parties the trial court on the same day ordered for the reopening of the case and fixed 16-1-1976 further proceedings. On 15-1-1976 the defendant absented himself without any sufficient cause and the suit was ordered to proceed exparte against him and 12-2-1976 was fixed for expate evidence. The suit was adjourned for several dates and therefore the exparte evidence was recorded and the arguments were heard on 19-1-1977 by the trial court and reserved the judgment for 24-1-77. On 24.1.77 the trial court did not pronounce any judgment and stayed the suit. Then application was given by the plaintiff on 19-10-77 that the writ petition preferred by the defendant which was pending in the High Court had been disposed off and hence the order be pronounced as no other proceeding is left in it. The trial court passed an order on 31-1-1978 decreeing the plaintiff's suit exparte. After lapse of 10 or 11 months on 16-11-78 the defendant moved an application under order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree dated 31-1-78 on the ground the he had no knowledge of it and that he knew it only in the month of November 1978 that an exparte decree was passed against him. The trial court allowed this application. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs went to Commissioner's court in revision but the revision was dismissed by the additional Commissioner on 21-2-1980. Then she filed the present revision before the Board. The trial court allowed this application. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs went to Commissioner's court in revision but the revision was dismissed by the additional Commissioner on 21-2-1980. Then she filed the present revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the record. It is admitted case of the parties that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in which an objection was taken by the defendant for the continuance of the suit was ordered to be stayed. It is not disputed fact that the suit was again reopened by the trial court on the application of the plaintiff in the presence of the parties on 18.12.75. and 15.1.76 was fixed for further proceedings. On 15.1.76 the defendant deliberately absented himself and on 31-1-78 the exparte decree was passed. Now the question for consideration before me arises as to whether 31-1-78 the date on which exparte decree was passed decree was passed should be taken to be the date of hearing on this point the learned counsels for the parties advanced their elaborate arguments. According to the revisionist the date of hearing should be taken to be 15-1-1976 and the time for setting aside the decree of exparte run from that date while according to the opposite party the date would run from 6-11-78 when he came to know of the exparte decree passed against him. The application has obviously been presented by the defendant under order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree against him. This application could be moved only on two grounds. Firstly the summons were not duly served and secondly if the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. These words "when the suit was called on for hearing" were very meaningful. It did not relate to the date when the exparte decree was passed but it relates to a date when the suit was called on for hearing. These words "when the suit was called on for hearing" were very meaningful. It did not relate to the date when the exparte decree was passed but it relates to a date when the suit was called on for hearing. In the present case the suit was called on for hearing on 15-1-76 as was ordered by the trial court on 18-12-75 in the presence of the parties and therefore the defendant ought to have explained that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing on 15-1-76 to get the benefit of order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. If her failed his application was out of picture and he could not get the benefit of this rule for setting aside the ex-part decree against him. In the present case the defendant absolutely did not give out that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing on 15-1-76 when the suit was called on for hearing and therefore he cannot avail of the provision of this rule. He rest contended with giving an application that he knew of the exparte decree on 6-11-78 and so his application was within time but in my opinion the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party is misconceived. 31-1-78 was not a date when the suit was called on for hearing. That was the date for pronouncement of the order which was reserved by the trial court after recording exparte evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 15-1-76 was a date when the suit was called on for hearing and the defendant has absolutely given on reason as to why he could not appear on the said date and in the circumstances the trial court has erred in allowing his application for setting aside the exparte decree and learned Additional Commissioner was wrong in dismissing the revision. The similar view was held by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No. 2771 of 1976, U.P. State Electricity Board v. Mohammad Hasan Khan, 1977 A.W.C. 528. In this case also the defendant had failed to give any sufficient reason that he was prevented from appearing into the court on the date when the suit was called on for hearing. In this case also the defendant had failed to give any sufficient reason that he was prevented from appearing into the court on the date when the suit was called on for hearing. The defendant had gives his reason for being absent on the date of the order which was not found sufficient and was held by the Hon'ble Justice Mr. Hari Swarup that the absence on the date of hearing ought to have been explained. On the reasons given above I find that the defendant had failed to give any explanation for his absence on the date when the suit was called on for hearing i.e. 15-1-76 and therefore his application for setting aside the exparte decree with liable to be rejected and the courts below erred in allowing it. 4. It has very well been borne out from the record that the order reopening of the case was ordered on 18-12-75 in the presence of the counsels for the parties and that 15-1-76 was fixed as the next date for the hearing. The defendant has therefore intimation for the date. He did not give any reason as to why he did not attend the court on the said date. This only goes to show that either he deliberately avoided to attend the court on the date so fixed or he was grossly negligent in attending it. As observed earlier this was the date when the suit was called on for hearing. In the circumstances I find that the defendant now the opposite party was not at all entitled to get any benefit of order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code and it was a wrong exercise of jurisdiction in his favour by the courts below be allowing his application. 5. The revision in the circumstances is allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are set aside.