Judgment Birendra Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The suit was decreed ex parte oa 24.6.1976 in title suit No. 66 of 1975 by Munsif West, Muzaffarpur, in the following circumstances. 2. After the suit was filed the defendants seem to have appeared and filed vafcalatnama. On 4.2.1976 and 1.3.1976 certain petitions were filed on behalf of the defendants for time. The case was adjourned to 1.4.1976. On 1.4.1976 the defendants did not appear or take any step. The learned Munsif fixed 10.4.1976 for ex parte hearing of the suit. Ultimately the suit was taken up exparte and was decreed on 14.6.1976, as stated above. The defendants thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte decree dated 14.6.1976 afore-mentioned. The learned Munsif rejected their application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants thereafter filed an appeal which was heard by the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, who by his judgment dated 26.9.1979 set aside the ex parte decree passed by the learned Munsif and ordered that the original suit be restored to its file for hearing according to law. It is against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff has come to this Court in civil revision. 3. Mr. Jagdish Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has taken a completely wrong view of law in finding that the suit could not be posted for exparte hearing on 1.6.1976 or thereafter as the defendants had already appeared in the suit. It is not possible to accept this submission of the learned Counsel. 4. The learned Munsifin paragraph 13 of the order has given a categorical finding that the defendants had appeared in the original title suit and had filed vakalatnama through a lawyer and had also taken some other steps by filing time petitions. Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing, then, if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing, then, if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. This clearly shows that the suit can be posted for ex parte hearing only in a case where the defendants do not appear even in spite of summons having been served. But once the defendants have appeared either on receipt of summons or otherwise, the case cannot be fixed for ex parte hearing. In such a situation the Court must necessarily proceed with the hearing of the suit and cannot prevent the defendants on any subsequent date from participat ing in the suit. In the case of an ex parte hearing the defendants are barred from participating in the suit and cannot be allowed to participate in the hearing even though they appeared at any subsequent date. In the case of Govind Ram Agarwala V/s. Harsukhrai Doshi and Ors. 1969 B.L.J.R. 367, Mr. Justice Untwalia (as he then was) sitting with Mr. Justice Banerji took a similar view and held that posting the case for ex parte heaving after the defendants had appeared is illegal. In the instant case also, the case was posted for exports hearing after the defendants had appeared in the suit and, in my opinion, the learned Munsif was not justified in doing so. The order posting the suit for ex parte hearing was illegal and the learned Additional District Judge has taken a right view of the matter that it was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendants on the date when the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing. The ex parte decree has been rightly set aside and the suit restored to its original file and I do not find any good reason to interfere with this order of the learned Additional District Judge. 5. The result is that this application fails and is dismissed but without costs.