JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This is defendants a first appeal from order dated 2nd September, 1988, passed by VIII Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, rejecting the application of the defendant/appellant, purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, (for short the Code) in a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for the recovery of the earnest money paid to the defendant/appellant for the execution of a sale deed in pursuance of an agreement dated 14th December, 1983 when sum of Rs. 45,000/- was paid by the plaintiff/respondent as earnest money and total consideration of the sale was Rs. 50,000/-. It was agreed upon that the remaining amount of Rs. 5000/- would be paid after obtaining permission of the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holding Act. The defendant neither paid the sale consideration nor executed the sale deed, nor obtained permission of the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, nor he was prepared to return the earnest money. A notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant and on refusal to pay the earnest money and refusal to execute the sale deed the suit was filed. 2. In that suit a number of dates including 8-12-86, 8-1-87, 9-2-87 and were fixed for filing written statement by the defendant/appellant, but the written statement was not filed and the defendant moved an application for further time for filing the written statement on 9th April, 1987. The Court directed the defdt. appellant to pay the entire cost up to 16th April, 1987 then the defendant's application can be disposed of. On 16th April, 1987 the cost was not deposited and the application of the defendant for further time was rejected. On 1st may, 1987 another application was filed to set aside the earlier order not granting the time for filing written statement and for accepting the written statement of the defendant appellant. On 8-5-87 the date fixed, the earlier ex parte order was set aside and the suit there was curfew in the city and 14th July, 1987 was adjourned on 19th May, 1987, but on 19th May, 1987 was fixed. On that date defendant filed an application for adjournment, which was rejected due to non-appearance of the learned counsel and the same was rejected. On that date defendant filed an application for adjournment, which was rejected due to non-appearance of the learned counsel and the same was rejected. In consequence of the rejection of that application for adjournment on 14-7-87 the 29-7-87 was the date fixed for ex parte hearing. On that date an application was filed by the plaintiff/respondent and the next date fixed was August, 4, 1987. On that date ex parte arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent and 6th August, 1987 was the date fixed for Judgment. On that date i.e. 6th August, 1987 the suit was decreed ex parte. 3. It is to be noticed that thereafter a restoration application was filed by the defendant-appellant purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. Only a prayer was made that the order dated 29-7-87 may be set aside and there was no prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 5th August, 1987 and allegation was made that the date was fixed 29th July, 1987 and the suit was decreed ex parte. A copy of the restoration application has been filed along with an affidavit to vacate the interim stay and the same is marked Annexure-2. I have perused the same and it is conspicuous by observe of a prayer to set aside the order dated 6th August, 1987. The Additional Civil Judge VIII, Meerut, by impugned order has rejected, the application for restoration filed by the defendant/appellant. Against that present appeal from that order has been filed. 4. Sri V.C. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no sufficient reasons recorded under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. on the basis of the affidavit, Annexure-2, that sufficient cause was shown by not appearing on the date fixed. Secondly the application to set aside the ex parte decree must have been allowed, that the court below failed to record any finding about the sufficient cause in deciding the applications. 5. Secondly the application to set aside the ex parte decree must have been allowed, that the court below failed to record any finding about the sufficient cause in deciding the applications. 5. Sri A.R. Sirohi, learned counsel for the respondent argued that under the circumstance of the case, there was no prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 6th August, 1987 rather only prayer was to set aside the order dated 29th July, 1987 and under the circumstances of the case as the defendant/appellant did not return the earnest money in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement for sale and did not execute the sale deed, the defendant/appellant has taken number of dates including 8-12-87, 8-1-87, 9-2-87 and 9-3-87 for filing written statement, but did not file the same, nor paid the cost and it was just delaying tactics, which was being adopted and even though there was no curfew in the City. In counter affidavit everments on behalf of the respondent was not replied by the rejoinder affidavit, secondly no sufficient ground was made out for non-appearing of the appeal, on the date fixed i.e. on 6th August. There was no prayer to set aside the land ex parte decree dated 6-8-87. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am proposing to decide the same on merits. Under the circumstances of the case a suit was filed for returning the earnest money, which was obtained by the defendant/appellant in pursuance of the agreement for sale, dated 14th December, 1983. Neither the defendant/appellant was paying the earnest money nor executed the sale deed in spite of the notices being served on him. Consequently a suit has to be filed and on a number of dates, including as mentioned above, the defendant/appellant was avoiding to file the written statement. Further in the restoration application (a copy of which is filed along with the stay application) there was no prayer that the order dated 6-8-87, decreeing the suit ex parte may be set aside or may be recalled. Only the prayer, was in respect, of order dated 29th July, 1987 on which date the case was adjourned for 4th August, 1987. In this way the defendant/appellant did not take care for making proper prayer in the restoration application and there was no prayer, as stated above to set aside ex parte decree at all. Only the prayer, was in respect, of order dated 29th July, 1987 on which date the case was adjourned for 4th August, 1987. In this way the defendant/appellant did not take care for making proper prayer in the restoration application and there was no prayer, as stated above to set aside ex parte decree at all. Under the circumstances of the case sufficient reasons have been recorded by the Trial Court for rejecting the application for restoration. It cannot be laid that the defendant/appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing, when the suit was called for hearing and the was decided ex parte on 6th August, 1987, in spite of which there was no prayer in the restoration application to recall order dated 6-8-87 hence the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous. The present appeal from order, is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 6th September, 1988, as extended from time to time is vacated.