GULAB GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure, is by one of the defendants who feel aggrieved by the order dated 5-3-1986 passed by the D. J. , Satna in MJC. No. 3 of 1984, dismissing their application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. , and thereby refusing to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1983, passed against them in C. S. No. 18-A/81. ( 2 ) IT is no longer in dispute that the appellant ' were one of the defendants in C. S. No. 18-A/81, filed by respondent No. 1 for their eviction and arrears of rent. Notice in the said suit was served on the Chairman of the appellants society who engaged his Advocate and filed his Wokalatnama. The said Advocate appeared for the appellants and took part in the proceedings. A written statement was also filed on behalf of the appellants but the said written statement was signed by the Secretary of the Society. Inspite of service and written statement, the appellants failed to participate in the proceedings and thereby suffered the ex-parte decree. In the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. , their main contention was that they did not yet an opportunity to present their case and the written statement filed by the Secretary was wholly unauthorised. The learned judge found no substance in any of these submissions and dismissed the application. That is why the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal is that the Secretary who filed the written statement bad no legal right to represent the appellant-Society and have the appellant Society was not bound by the ex-parte decree. There is hardly any substance in this submission. It is not in dispute that the notice of the suit was served on the Chairman of the Society who has filed the present appeal. The said Chairman had also appointed an Advocate to plead the case of the appellant-Society and the said advocate had been appearing and participating in the trial of the suit on their behalf. It is true that the written statement on behalf of the appellant-Society was signed by the Secretary of the Society. The said Chairman had also appointed an Advocate to plead the case of the appellant-Society and the said advocate had been appearing and participating in the trial of the suit on their behalf. It is true that the written statement on behalf of the appellant-Society was signed by the Secretary of the Society. But this, by itself is, not sufficient to establish any "sufficient cause" for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Even if it was to be assumed that the written statement signed by the Secretary was not authorised, the appellant would not get any advantage. The position in such a situation would be that they would be deemed to have admitted the plaintiff's case in the absence of any written statement. The ex-parte decree would still remain valid as it would be assumed that inspite of service of notice and engagement of a Lawyer, the appellants chose not to contest the suit on merits. Clearly, therefore, the impugned order suffers from no illegality whatsoever. ( 4 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150/ -. Appeal dismissed. .