JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-5-1982 passed by Sri S.K. Lakhtakia, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, partly allowing the appeal arising out of a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & land Reforms Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that man Mohan Shukla and three others brought a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act against Raj Mohan Shukla, Anand Mohan shukla, Vishun Datt Shukla, Nagar Palika Rai Bareli and the State of U.P. the suit was decreed ex-parte and the defendants were also ordered to pay Rs. 6,000/- as damages. Aggrieved by the decree and Judgment the defendant preferred and appeal before the Divisional Commissioner with the allegation that no notice or summons were received by them. The plaintiff respondent contended before the court below that the defendant did not turn up despite summons, registered notice and publication in Hindi Daily Swatantra Bharat. The learned Additional Commissioner partly allowed the appeal holding that the appellant could seek recourse for setting aside the ex-parte order in the trial court if they had not information. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, reduced the amount of damages from Rs. 6000/- to 2000/-. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no notice to the appellant and the amount of damages was fixed arbitrarily. He also urged to remand the case to the learned Additional Commissioner. Sri L.K. Tewari, B/H of Sri S.D. Pathak has contended that the service of notice was sufficient and the first appellate court has already taken a very lenient view in reducing the amount of damages from Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 2000/-. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the defendant appellant should have moved the trial court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Rule 13 of Order 9, C.P.C. has been framed for the benefit of those defendants who do not have any opportunity of being heard. This was the simplest course which appellant should have chosen instead of preferring an appeal against the order of the trial court. This only shows that they were not interested in the final disposal of the case. I am, therefore. This was the simplest course which appellant should have chosen instead of preferring an appeal against the order of the trial court. This only shows that they were not interested in the final disposal of the case. I am, therefore. Satisfied that no case of remand is made out. 5. As regards the amount of damages, the learned first appellate court has already taken a very liberal view in reducing the amount from Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 2000/-. It, therefore, calls for no interference. 6. In the result, this appeal has not force and is consequently dismissed.