JUDGMENT Sh. B.P. Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-1-1990 passed by Sri Devendra Kumar Jain, First Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1988-Atul Kumar v. State Bank of India and others. 2. This appeal came up for admission of 14-2-1990 and Sri S.N. Verma put in appearance on behalf of plaintiff-respondent. He was given time to file counter affidavit up to 14th March, 1990 and the appellant was given three days time to file rejoinder affidavit thereafter. It was also mentioned in the order dated 14-2-1990 that at the State of admission the appeal itself may be disposed of. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 3. I have heated learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 4. Original Suit No. 239 of 1987 was filed by the State Bank of India against Awl Kumar for recovery of Rs. 24,838.50/-. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 16-1-1988. On 16th March. 1988 Atul Kumar applied under Order 9 Rule 30 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex-parte order with the allegation that it was for the first time on 6-3-1988 that one Lalitesh Kumar had informed him about the fact that the State Bank had obtained ex-parte decree against him on 6.3.1988 was Sunday and on 7th March, 1988 Atul Kumar came to the courts but there was a strike in the Civil Courts and after the strike was over on 14th March, 1988, Atul Kumar could apply for the inspection of the record. After the records were inspected, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was moved. An affidavit was filed by Atul Kumar in which a clear averment was made that he had no knowledge about the suit prior to 6th March, 1988. 5. The application was opposed by the State Bank of India but no counter affidavit was filed. The Trial Court did not accept the affidavit of Atul Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the absence of any counter affidavit there was a presumption that the averments made by And Kumar in his affidavit in support of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code were true. Reliance has been placed upon the cases of Raja Himanshudhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies; (AIR 1962 Allahabad 440) and Mehra Parekh & Co. Reliance has been placed upon the cases of Raja Himanshudhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies; (AIR 1962 Allahabad 440) and Mehra Parekh & Co. v. Commissioner Income Tax (AIR 1956 Supreme Court 554). The contention of the appellant's counsel is well founded and it is settled law that in the absence of any counter affidavit filed by the opposite party the averments made by the applicant in his affidavit on the basis of his personal knowledge have to be accepted as true and correct. One is not aware of the circumstance under which learned counsel for the State Bank of India did not think it proper to file any counter affidavit in the trial court. 6. The Trial Court was in error in disbelieving the affidavit filed by Atul Kumar. The mere fact that the affidavit of Lalitesh Kumar was not filed was significant when the averments made by And Kumar in his affidavit were not controverted. Order 1. The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned First Additional Civil Judge passed in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1988 on 29.1.1990 is hereby set aside. The ex-parte decree in Suit No. 239 of 1987 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur is hereby set aside and the Suit is restored to its original number with the direction that the Trial Court will register the Suit to its original number and will proceed to try the case afresh in accordance with law. The costs in this appeal shall abide the final result of the Suit. 2. Let a certified copy of this order be given to learned counsel within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.