V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) SHRI Akiesh Chandra Mathur, Appellant, has filed this appeal against the order dated 12. 2. 1992 of Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. , moved by him for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 22. 7. 1988. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts, leading to the filing of this appeal are that Canara Bank, respondent/ plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 44,006. 80 paise against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as "defendant" ). The case came up for hearing on 7. 4. 1988, on which date, the defendant appeared, on whose prayer, the case was adjourned to 5. 5. 1988 for filing of the written statement. On this date, again, a request was made for further time by the defendant for filing the written statement and so the case was adjourned to 1. 6. 1988. There was no appearance on behalf of the defendant on that date and so ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him and the case was adjourned to 22. 7. 1988 for ex-parte evidence. No one appeared for the defendant on that date and so after recording the exparte evidence, the suit was decreed. ( 3 ) AN application dated 16. 8. 1988 was moved by the defendant, under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 C. P. C. for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 22. 7. 1988. It was, inter-alia, pleaded by the defendant that on account of the strike by the advocates, no advocate could be engaged by him and so, on his request, made on 7. 4. 1988 the case was adjourned to 5. 5. 1988 and that on that date, his counsel Shri R. B. L. Srivastava could not be present on account the trouble in his eyes and so, the case was adjourned to 1. 6. 1988. Further averment made in the application has been that his brother Avinash Chandra Mathur was seriously ill during the last week of May, 1988 and who was got admitted in the hospital and the entire family was looking after him, on account of which, there was no appearance on 1. 6. 1988. It was also claimed that on 20. 6. 1988, his brother was operated upon for cancer. 6. 1988. It was also claimed that on 20. 6. 1988, his brother was operated upon for cancer. It was also claimed that on 18. 7. 1988, he came to know that the case was fixed for exparte evidence and on 22. 7. 1988, he had even gone to the court and came to know that exparte evidence was being recorded, but in spite of it, it was only on 10. 8. 1988 that his counsel inspected the file and came to know that exparte decree has been passed on 22. 7. 1988. It is, in these circumstances, that a prayer was made that the exparte judgment and decree be set aside. ( 4 ) THE application was opposed by the plaintiff. It was, inter-alia, pleaded that there was no sufficient cause for the setting aside of the exparte judgment and decree and it is stated that application is misconceived and same be dismissed. The illness of brother of the defendant, at the relevant time, is also disputed. ( 5 ) LEARNED appellate court, after hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order. ( 6 ) I have heard Shri R. S. Endlaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anil Chawla, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through through the record. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has gravely erred in not framing an issue and not giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, vested in it and has committed material irregularity, on account of which, the order cannot be sustained. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the defendant/ appellant has been adopting delaying tactics having failed to file the written statement or to take steps for getting the exparte proceedings set aside within time. He has also submitted that the application dated 16. 8. 1988 was disposed of by the learned trial court only on 12. 2. 1992 and at no time, any request was made by the appellant for opportunity to lead evidence. He has also submitted that the application dated 16. 8. 1988 was disposed of by the learned trial court only on 12. 2. 1992 and at no time, any request was made by the appellant for opportunity to lead evidence. He has, thus, submitted that a bare reading of the application and its reply makes it abundantly clear that the appellant had no case and the application has rightly been dismissed and while doing so, the learned trial court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the appeal may be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to all these submissions and have no hesitation in holding that no fault can be found in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court in passing the impugned order. It is the admitted case of the appellant that he was served with the summons in pursuance of which, he appeared in court on 7. 4. 1988 and the decree was passed only on 22. 7. 1988 after the case was adjourned on three dates. No steps had been taken during all this period for getting the exparte proceedings set aside and the application has been moved beyond limitation. No prayer had, at any time, been made for permission to lead evidence during the period of more than three years of the application remaining pending. No material was available on record also to show that the learned trial court has committed any illegality. I am, thus, clearly of the view that no case has been made out for interference in the order of the learned trial court. ( 10 ) IN these circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed with costs.