Judgment B. P. Jha, ACJ. 1. This civil revision petition is against an order dated 3rd May, 1985. 2. By the impugned order, the court refused to recall the order of ex-pane hearing dated 2nd May, 1985.2-5-1985 was the date fixed for hearing. When the case was called for hearing, the defendants did not appear. Hence, the court fixed the case for ex-parte hearing and examined the witnesses on that date. Subsequently, the defendants appeared and filed a written statement on the same date. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners contends that the court ought to have fixed a date for ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioners means to say that the court ought not to have proceeded with the ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985. To this extent he is right. On a perusal of Order IX, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) it is clear that if the defendant does not appear on call, on the date of hearing, the court will fix a date for ex-parte hearing. In other words, the court ought to have fixed the next date for ex-parte hearing of 2-5-1985, which had not been done in this case. It is for this reason that Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code has been enacted. It provides that if on the adjourned dated of hearing the defendant appears and shows good cause the court will recall the order fixing the date for ex-parte hearing. 4. In the present case, the court proceeded with the ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985 without fixing the next date for ex-parte hearing. In my opinion, it is not in accordance with law. If the order for ex-parte hearing is illegal the order dated 3-6-1986 is also not in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party cites a decision of the Supreme court in "arjun Singh V/s. Mohindra Kumar" ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ). In my opinion, that case does not apply to this case. In that case it has been held that once the case has been fixed for judgment the court cannot recall the order for ex-parte hearing. 6. In the present case, the court proceeded with the ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985. No date for judgment was fixed. In my opinion, that case does not apply to this case. In that case it has been held that once the case has been fixed for judgment the court cannot recall the order for ex-parte hearing. 6. In the present case, the court proceeded with the ex-parte hearing on 2-5-1985. No date for judgment was fixed. The defendants were entitled to file a petition for recall of the order as provided under Order IX, Rule 7 of the code. The court ought to have recalled the order as good cause had been shown by the defendants. Hence I set aside that order. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the orders dated 2-5-1985 and 3-5-1985 are set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.