JUDGMENT - PURANIK S.W., J.: - This is a revision petition by the original defendant against the original plaintiffs being aggrieved by two concurrent orders of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur and of extra Assistant Judge, Akola holding that the ex parte decree passed against the applicant defendant was not liable to be set aside. 2. The facts leading to the present revision may be extracted from the lower Appellate court's judgement. The respondents had filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit field and for decree of reconveyance and possession of the suit field. They had alleged that they have executed a nominal sale deed dated 14-3-1966 in favour of the defendant in consequence of a loan transaction and the defendant had agreed to recovery the suit field after enjoyment thereof for seven years. The defendant filed his written statement at Exhibit 12 and issues were framed vide Exhibit 13 and the suit was fixed for trial. 3. On 16-12-1976 which was the adjourned date of hearing of the suit, neither the defendant nor his counsel was present. The Court, therefore, proceeded ex parte and recorded evidence of the plaintiff. On the next day i.e. on 17-12-1976, the defendant's Counsel filed on application (Ex. 22) for setting aside the ex parte order. Taking the view that the order could not be set aside, the application was rejected. Thereafter, the trial Court passed ex parte decree on 10-2-1977 and the defendant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was registered as Reg. M.J.C. No.4/77. After hearing the parties, on 27-2-1980, the learned trial Judge passed the following order. “Heard parties. Subject to payment of Rs. 50 the ex parte order is set aside. The costs to be paid by 14-3-1980 failing which the application will be dismissed.” 4. Thus on appreciation of sufficient cause for absence having been shown by the defendant, the trial Court was pleased to set aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50/-. He also directed that the costs shall be paid on 14-3-1980 failing which the order setting aside the ex parte decree will stand vacated. 5. On 14-3-1980, which was the last date for payment of costs, the defendant being unable to pay the same filed an application (Ex. 50/-. He also directed that the costs shall be paid on 14-3-1980 failing which the order setting aside the ex parte decree will stand vacated. 5. On 14-3-1980, which was the last date for payment of costs, the defendant being unable to pay the same filed an application (Ex. 7) in the said M.J.C. No. 4/73. By that application he requested that since the defendant has yet to recover some money from sale of cotton, he should be granted further time of 15 days to pay the same. The trial Court, on hearing the say of the plaintiff, concluded that since the earlier order of 27-2-1980 was a conditional order stating that in default of payment of costs by 14-3-1980 his application stands dismissed, nothing survived before the trial Court. The trial Court relied on the decisions reported in (Dinesh Chandra Nath and others v. Surendra Chandra Nath)1, A.I.R. 1971 Assam and Nagaland 156 and (Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. v. State of Bihar)2, A.I.R. 1965 Cal. 308. 6. Upon dismissal of his application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Judge, Akola. He also confirmed the order of the trial Court holding that the trial Court was right in applying the principle laid down in the aforestated decisions, it is in these circumstances that the defendant has preferred this revision. 7. Ordinarily, revision would not be entertained after two concurrent findings are given. However, being purely a question of law, my learned predecessor had issued Rule in this case. 8. I have heard the counsel, Shri M.N. Ingley for the applicant and Shri A.J. Pophaly for non-applicant No. 2. Non-applicant No. 1 is served. 9. Our High Court, in the case of (B.C. Shah and Co. v. T.P. Kanani)3, 1976 Mh.L.J. 40, was dealing with a similar situation. In the said case, the trial Court on 6-3-1974 had ordered that an ex parte decree in a summary suit was set aside on condition of depositing in Court Rs. 4,000 within two weeks of the order and the order further provided that on failure to deposit within time the motion was to stand dismissed with the result that the ex parte decree was to stand and the Court on application made on 28-2-1974 for enlargement of time to deposit refused to do so. 4,000 within two weeks of the order and the order further provided that on failure to deposit within time the motion was to stand dismissed with the result that the ex parte decree was to stand and the Court on application made on 28-2-1974 for enlargement of time to deposit refused to do so. This Court held: “that the part of the order which prescribed the period within which the condition was to be fulfilled must be regarded as procedural, that the Court had ample power to extend time either under section 148 or section 151, Civil Procedure Code and that the Courts should examine the merits of the application and grant extension sought for only if sufficient cause for failure to fulfil the condition within time is made out.” 10. The said judgment is based on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in (Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das)4, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 882 and (M/s. G. Pite and Co. v. Chandrakant Biharilal Shah)5, 1971 Mh.L.J. 717. I need not go into the details of these reasonings, suffice it to say that this judgement as well as the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court are binding on all the courts below. The facts of the said decision squarely apply to the facts of the present case and so also the ratio decidendi of that case applies to the present case. In view of this, what was required by the trial Judge was only to find out whether the applicant for extension of time to deposit was made bona fide and showed sufficient cause. In my opinion, the applicant-defendant who is a poor agriculturist, had stated that he required fifteen days additional time to sell his cotton crop so as to raise the funds. He was perfectly justified in seeking extension of time and was not in any way avoiding to pay the costs. He had also applied for extension of time during the period granted to him. In the result, therefore, I find that both the courts below have erroneously rejected the application for setting aside ex parte decree and refused to extend time to pay the costs. The said orders are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, therefore, the revision is allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Instead the application (Ex. The said orders are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, therefore, the revision is allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Instead the application (Ex. 7) filed by the defendant for extension of time is allowed. He is granted three months time to deposit the costs and on such depositing, the ex parte decree shall stand set aside. No order as to costs. Revision allowed. -----