Judgment : This civil revision petition is directed against the order in R.E.ANo.430 of 1985 in R.E.P.No.161 of 1983 in O.S.No.66 of 1980 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupathur. 2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner had obtained money decree against the respondents in O.S.No.66 of 1980 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirupathur. She had laid execution in R.E.P.No. 161 of 1983 before the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham. While so, the respondents had filed R.E.A.No.430 of 1985 under Sec.47, Civil Procedure Code and Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982, praying to declare that the entire decree debt in R.E.P.No.161 of 1983 in Tirupathur Sub Court, O.S.No.66 of 1980 as fully discharged. The petitioner had opposed that claim and had filed a detailed counter. While so, on 21. 1986, the first petitioner had appeared in person and second petitioner was not present. The respondent was not present. Both counsels were absent. The learned district Munsif had set the respondent ex parte and allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has come forward with this revision petition. 3. Mr.Mohana Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that petitioners claim that they were entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and Act 50 of 1982 was stoutly opposed by the respondent and the respondent has given a detailed counter, setting out the properties owned by the petitioners, in the court below and while so the court below is wrong in allowing the petition, while the petitioners have not substantiated their claim that they are entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and Act 50 of 1982. 4. Per contra, Mr.Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order is an ex parte order and the remedy open to the revision petitioner was to file a petition under O.9. Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order and when that remedy was open to her, she cannot come forward with a revision petition under Sec.115 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. As I have indicated earlier, the respondents had filed R.E.A.No.430 of 1985 claiming the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and SO of 1982 and sought for a declaration that entire decree debt was discharged. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. As I have indicated earlier, the respondents had filed R.E.A.No.430 of 1985 claiming the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and SO of 1982 and sought for a declaration that entire decree debt was discharged. That was opposed by the revision petitioner who had filed a detailed counter in the court below. While the claim of the respondents herein that they were entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982 was stoutly opposed and disputed, the burden is cast upon them to prove that they are entitled to the benefits of the said Acts and only in such a case their claim can be allowed. In this case, no evidence whatsoever was recorded. As such, the order of the court below allowing the petition is clearly erroneous and perverse. Simply because it is an ex parte order, it cannot be sustained. No doubt, the revision petitioner can also seek for setting aside the ex parte order by resorting to O.9, Rule 13, C.P.C. That is one of the remedies open to her. The other remedy open to her is not shut out because she has got remedy under O.9. Rule 13, C.P.C. 6. Mr.Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the ruling reported in Thavasikannu Thevar v. Sankaralingam Pillai, 1938 M.W.N.17. In that case, there was an exparte decree. No appeal was preferred against the ex parte decree within the period of limitation. Aggrieved party had filed a revision. It was held that as the decree passed in the suit had not been appealed-against within the period allowed by law, it has become final and the High Court would not interfere with it. The proper procedure was to prefer an appeal against the decree and get remedy by urging the present grounds. 7. The tacts of the above referred case vary totally from the facts of this case. This is a case where there was simply no evidence but yet the petition was allowed. Such an order cannot at all be sustained. When such a perverse order has been passed, the respondents cannot take umbrage under any technical plea. 8. Mr. Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the decision in Pan Urang Veduram v. Mohan Chhatrabhuj, A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 395. Such an order cannot at all be sustained. When such a perverse order has been passed, the respondents cannot take umbrage under any technical plea. 8. Mr. Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the decision in Pan Urang Veduram v. Mohan Chhatrabhuj, A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 395. In that case, on the date of hearing, when an application was made for adjournment, that was rejected by the court and the suit was dismissed. It was held that the proper course would be to apply for a review of the order or apply for an order to set aside the order of dismissal and not to apply in revision. 9. The principle which can be deduced from this ruling, cannot be applied to the case on hand. Here is a case where an order is passed without any evidence whatsoever, and so it cannot stand and it is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the above, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order of the court below is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made in this order. The Court below shall give an opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence both oral and documentary and thereafter decide the case on merits. No costs.