JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City by which he has dismissed the application of the defendant-appellant moved under Order 9 rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated October 23, 1991 passed in Suit No. 391/91 filed for specific performance of an agreement relating to an immovable property. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that on March 20, 1993, the defendant-appellant moved an application before the trial court stating that the said ex parte decree has been obtained against him by practising fraud, he was deprived to contest the suit and he wants to produce evidence in this miscellaneous case and praying that the evidence of the parties be recorded in this case. He further contended that its copy was duly given the same day to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur city fixed several dates for its reply and arguments but impugned order was passed without deciding it. He lastly contended that the impugned order could not be passed without disposing of the said application dated March 20, 1993. He placed reliance on Chandrakala v. Banshidhar, 1984 RLR 194 . 3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the application dated March 20, 1993 was moved after about a year of the filing of the application under Order 9 rule 13, C.P.C., during this period several dates were fixed for arguments and as such it was not necessary to pass any order on the said application dated March 20, 1993. 4. There is a great force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. 4. There is a great force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. The application dated March 20, 1993, paper No. B9/1, runs as under : " lsok esa izkFkZuki= fuEu izokj izLrqr gS % (1) ;g gS fd mDr izdj.k esa ,d fu?kksf"kr "kM;U= ls izfroknh izkFkhZ ds fo:) /kks[ks ls fMdzh yh xbZ gSA rFkk mDr izdj.k esa ( fraud laca/kh ) rF;kRed ckrksa ds ckor enquiry fd;s tkus dh vko';drk gSA (2) ;g gS fd izkFkhZ 'kgknr xokgku is'k djuk pkgrk gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ izfroknh dks mDr okn dh dk;Zokgh esa lfEefyr gksus o leqfpr iSjoh ls oafpr j[kk x;k gSA izkFkhZ lk{; is'k djus dks rRij gSA vr% izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd mDr izdj.k esa lk{; ds fy;s ekeyk fuf'pr fd;k tkdj vkxs dkjokbZ djuk vko';d ,oa izkFkZuh; gSA gLrk{kj oklwnso izkFkhZ " A note appears on the margin of this application "Received Copy sd/ Advocate 20.3.93". The order-sheet dated March 20, 1993 also recites that its copy has been given to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. April 2, 1993 was fixed for its reply and arguments on it. Subsequently, April 14, 1993, April 19, 1993, May 9, 1993, May 21, 1993 and May 26, 1993 were fixed for the same purpose. It reply was not filed. On July 6, 1993, August 9, 1993 was fixed August 9, 1993 was declared holiday and the case was taken up on August 10, 1993 and final arguments on the application moved under Order 9 rule 13, C.P.C. were heard. The impugned order was passed on August 13, 1993. It is thus clear that no order was passed on the said application dated March 20, 1993. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to decide this application before hearing arguments on the application moved under Order 9 rule 13, C.P.C. It has been observed in Chandrakala v. Banshidhar, 1984 RLR 194 at page 198 para 8 , as follows : "The learned District Judge should have at least considered the request of the appellant for producing evidence before proceeding to decide main application under Order 9 rule 13, C.P.C." Similar observations have been made in para 18 of it. On this ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. The appeal is allowed with costs. On this ground alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. The appeal is allowed with costs. The order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur city dated August 13, 1993 is set aside. The case is remanded to him for first deciding defendant-appellant's application dated March 20, 1993 and, thereafter to decide the application moved under Order 9 rule 13, C.P.C. accordingly.Case remanded. *******