JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Rajesh Tandon has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 had filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment for the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. This suit was decreed on 4th September, 1985. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 25th September, 1985 for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was rejected by the Judge Small Cause Court on 2-6-1986. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision before the District Judge, Dehradun. The District Judge, Dehradun also dismissed the revision on 12th September, 1986. The petitioner has now challenged the orders dated 2-6-1986 and 12-9-1986 by mesne of the present petition. 3. It is not disputed that 3-7-1986 was fixed for final hearing of the suit before the Judge Small Causes Court. On that date the petitioner was absent and the Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and fixed 5th July 1986 for delivery of judgment. On 5th July, 1985 the petitioner appeared in court and moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 3-7-1985 which was rejected by the Judge Small Cause Court as the court was of the opinion that the said application was not maintainable as the decree had not been passed till then. The ex parte decree was passed on 4-9-1985. After the decree was passed on 4th September, 1986, the petitioner again moved an application of similar grounds on 25th September, 1985 for setting aside the ex parte decree. It would be, therefore, apparent that immediately after ex parte order was passed against the petitioner, the petitioner had appeared before the court and moved an application for setting the ex parte order of 5th July, 1985. This application was rejected on the ground that the application was not maintainable and consequently, a fresh application was moved on 25th Sept,. 1985 after the decree was passed. This by itself shows that there was sufficient cause on the part of the petitioner for his non-appearance before the court. This application was rejected on the ground that the application was not maintainable and consequently, a fresh application was moved on 25th Sept,. 1985 after the decree was passed. This by itself shows that there was sufficient cause on the part of the petitioner for his non-appearance before the court. In my opinion, both the courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in not allowing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 2-6-1986 and 12-9-1986 are quashed. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree moved by the petitioner is allowed. The ex parte decree dated 4-9-1985 is set aside. The order dated 3-7-1985 directing that the case shall proceed ex parte is also set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the suit on merits after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard. Since the suit if pending for a number of years, and decision of the suit has been unnecessarily delayed, I direct the Trial Court to decide the suit within three months from the date the certified copy of this judgment is produced before the Trial Court. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.