JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6-7-95 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application u/O.9 R. 13 r/w Section 151 CPC and set-aside the ex-parte order passed by him on 24-4-95 and, also, set-aside the ex-parte decree passed by the Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Hari Ram (Petitioner) filed a suit in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar against defendants Jai Singh and five others for specific performance of the contract. The case was fixed for filing the written statement on 24-4-95. The timings of the Courts changed on 11-4-95 and the defendants could not appear in the Court on 24-4-95 and the learned counsel for the defendants, therefore, pleaded no instructions'. The case was fixed for filing the written statement on 24-4-95. The timings of the Courts changed on 11-4-95 and the defendants could not appear in the Court on 24-4-95 and the learned counsel for the defendants, therefore, pleaded no instructions'. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, passed the ex-parte order against the defendants on 24-4-95 in the following terms : 24&4&95] odhy oknh Jh larks"k xqIrk mifLFkrA izfroknh la[;k 5 us odhy Jh tudyky us uks bUlVs~D'ku IyhM djus ij muds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Z dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA odhy izfroknh la[;k 1rk 4 Jh v:.k 'kekZ us vkt fgcty iSjoh u gksuk tkfgj fd;kA izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 3 Lo;a Hkh mifLFkr ugha gSA vkt Hkh tokcnkok is'k ugha fd;k x;kA vr% nkok oknh fo:) izfroknh gLc vkns'k 3 fu;e 10 lh ih lh fuEu izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS%& 1& pdA ,e ,e ds eq0ua0 262@476 ds fdyk ua0A rk 20 dqy 20 ch?kk ugjh Hkwfe ds fodz; vuqcU/k fnukad 11&7&77 dh fofufn;~ vuqikyuk dh fMdzh izfroknh ds fo:) ikfjr dh tkrh gSA 2& izfroknh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og oknh ls cdk;k jkf'k izkIr dj mDr Hkwfe dk o;ukek mlds i{k esa ,d ekg dh vof/k esa fu"ikfnr ,oa iathc) djkosA ;fn ,slk djus esa izfroknh dkflj jgrs gSa rks cdk;k jkf'k U;k;ky; esa tek dj oknh U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls o;ukek fu"ikfnr ,oa iathc) djk ldsxkA 3& izfroknh ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vk'k; dh ikfjr dh tkrh gS fd og mDr Hkwfe fdlh Hkh izdkj fdlh vU; dks gLrkUrfjr djus o oknh ds mDr Hkwfe esa vkf/kiR;] P;kj[kk mi;ksx miHkksx o ikuh esa fdlh izdkj dk vfrdze.k djus ls oafpr jgsA 4& [kpkZ eqdnek oknh izfroknh ls ikosxkA fMdzh rS;kj dh tkosA fely iSly ekuh tkdj ckn rdehuk tkCrk nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 24&4&95 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA The learned Additional District judge, after passing the ex-parte order, immediately proceeded to pass the ex-parte decree against the defendants. 3. Shri Surendra Singh one of the defendants on 25-4-95, filed an application u/O. 9 R. 13 r/w Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 3. Shri Surendra Singh one of the defendants on 25-4-95, filed an application u/O. 9 R. 13 r/w Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. It was alleged in the application that the defendants were not knowing regarding the change of the timings of the Courts as on 7-4-95 the Court was observing the day timings and when the case was fixed on 24-4-95 he came to attend the Court at 1.00 p.m. but by that time the Court's working was over. He could not contact his counsel and could meet him today in the morning. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge, by his order dated 6-7-95 allowed the application filed by the defendant and set-aside the ex-parte decree and the order dated 24-4-95. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge has committed material irregularity and illegality in passing the order dated 6-7-95 and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several opportunities were given to the defendants to file written statement and more than two years were taken by the defendants but still no written statement was filed. In these circumstances, when the learned counsel for the defendants pleaded `no instructions' then no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge in passing the ex-parte decree. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ex-parte order passed by the learned Additional District Judge could have been challenged in an appeal and no application u/O.9 R. 13 r/w Section 151 CPC was maintainable. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while setting-aside the ex-parte decree the learned Additional District Judge should have imposed a heavy cost upon the defendants. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 5. The suit was fixed for filing written statement on 24-4-95. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 5. The suit was fixed for filing written statement on 24-4-95. Though sufficient time was granted to the defendants for filing the written statement and the learned counsel for the defendants pleaded 'no instructions' but the learned trial Court, after passing the ex-parte order, should have asked the plaintiff to produce the evidence in support of his case. The learned Additional District Judge, instead of asking the plaintiff to prove his case, after passing the ex-parte order immediately proceeded to pass the ex-parte decree against the defendants u/O. VIII R. 10 CPC. When the application u/O. 9 R. 13 read Section 151 CPC was made on the very next day of the hearing and the sufficient cause was shown then the learned Additional District Judge allowed the same. The learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to entertain the application and pass the order and he has not committed any material irregularity or illegality in exercise of his jurisdiction. Though the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any infirmity but, however, while setting aside the ex-parte decree and order the learned Additional District Judge should have awarded heavy costs from the defendants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge requires modification only to this extent that the defendants should pay Rs. 1000/- (Rs. one thousand only) as costs to the plaintiff. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is maintained with this modification that the defendants should pay the plaintiff the costs of Rs. 1000/-. 6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is confirmed with the modification that the defendants should pay Rs. 1000/- (Rs. one thousand) as costs to the plaintiff within two months from today.Revision rejected with modification of awarding cost Rs. 1,000/-. *******