JUDGMENT : BINOD KUMAR ROY, J. 1. The Petitioner prays to quash the order dated 2.2.1985 passed by the Munsif-I, Oral in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1979 as also the appellate order dated 11.7.1985 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Oral, dismissing his Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1985 preferred against the aforementioned order. 2. The relevant facts are in a narrow compass. It appears that Respondent No. 4 Tulsi Ram Sharma who is a teacher of the Gandhi Inter College. Oral filed Original Suit No. 75 of 1975 for grant of permanent injunction impleading the Petitioner as one of the Defendants for restraining the Defendants from Interfering with his functioning as a teacher. It appears that Respondent No. 4 also sought for grant of temporary injunction. The Petitioner along with Respondent No. 5 who was then the Principal of the College appeared and opposed the prayer of Respondent No. 4. The application filed for grant of ad interim injunction by Respondent No. 4 was rejected. Respondent No. 4 went up in Misc. Appeal. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 entered appearance in the Misc. Appeal also. On 26.8.1976, however, the suit was dismissed for default. Respondent No. 4 filed an application for its restoration which was registered as Misc. Case No. 45 of 1976. On 18.12.1976, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 filed an objection in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1976. Thereafter on 4.2.1977, Misc. Case No. 45 of 1976 was transferred by the District Judge, Jalaun at Oral to the Court of Munsif-II Oral. According to Respondent No. 4, the Petitioner was present in the transferee court, namely, Munsif-II, Oral on 28.5.1977. On 5.11.1977, the prayer for restoration of the suit was allowed ex-parte by Munsif-II. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 did not appear even in the suit which was decreed ex-parte on 30.11.1977. On 27.1.1979, in the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 4 against the order rejecting his prayer for grant of ad interim Injunction, on 21.8.1978 an application was filed by Respondent No. 4 that since his suit has already been decided in his favour, this appeal is not being pressed. This order was passed in presence of the Petitioner. On 27.1.1979, in the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 4 against the order rejecting his prayer for grant of ad interim Injunction, on 21.8.1978 an application was filed by Respondent No. 4 that since his suit has already been decided in his favour, this appeal is not being pressed. This order was passed in presence of the Petitioner. On 27.1.1979, the Petitioner along with Respondent No. 5 filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. His prayer was resisted by Respondent No. 4 stating, inter-alia, that the Petitioner had although knowledge of the proceedings in the suit and accordingly, the prayer seeking condonation of delay as well as the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree both are liable to be rejected. The parties were heard. By the impugned order dated 2.2.1985, the Munsif-II, Oral rejected the prayer of the Petitioner after holding as follows: (i) This fact is undisputed that on behalf of the Petitioner Sri Kameshwar Dayal Srivastava, Advocate was doing pairvi in the case. (ii) From the documents filed by opposite party No. 1 (Respondent No. 4 herein) it is clear that the applicant No. 2 the principal had knowledge of the disposal and the decision in the suit on 21.8.1978 or in any view of the matter by 20.12.1978. (iii) Under Article 143 of the Limitation Act, 1963, 30 days period has been prescribed for filing an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree which has to be computed from the date of knowledge of the decree in such suits in which summons or notices have not been served on the Defendants in accordance with law. As in the instant case Defendants have already entered appearance, there is no question of extension of 30 days period. (iv) The Misc. Case No. 45 of 1976 was transferred on 4.2.1977, which was allowed on 5.11.1977 and during this long period both applicants had remained together and they had not made any attempt to know about the decision hence they cannot derive advantage of their inaction. (v) From the documents filed by opposite party No. 1 it is also clear that their lawyer Sri Kameshwar Dayal Srivastava also came to know of the decision of the suit on 21.8.1978. (v) From the documents filed by opposite party No. 1 it is also clear that their lawyer Sri Kameshwar Dayal Srivastava also came to know of the decision of the suit on 21.8.1978. (vi) Since the applicants have not furnished any sufficient cause, hence they are not entitled to any relief and the decision in Harihar Prasad Dubey vs. Tulsi Das Mundhra and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 120 does not offer any advantage to them. The appellate court concurred with the findings which in the peculiar facts and circumstances need not be reproduced. 3. The only submission made by Sri Arun Tandon, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, is that since the provisions of Rule 89A, which governs the procedure to be followed in regard to transfer or withdrawal of the cases are mandatory, the order allowing the Misc. Case and restoring back the suit was itself without Jurisdiction and accordingly, the application in question filed by the Petitioner was wrongly rejected. 4. Mr. Tewari, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, on the other hand contended as follows: (i) As the Petitioner has not challenged the correctness or the validity of the order dated 5.11.1977 by which the Misc. case was allowed by filing any revision or writ, now he cannot challenge the same as without Jurisdiction and in any view of the matter this Court need not exercise its discretion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case Inasmuch as the co-applicant of the Petitioner namely the principal of the College against whom specific findings were recorded whose application was also rejected by the impugned orders has not come up before this Court by Joining hands of the Petitioner, (ii) The decree was put in execution by Respondent No. 4 and only when coercive steps were taken against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, they came up with the application in question and the decree in so far as It related to Respondent No. 3 the D.I. O.S. Jalaun has already been executed before passing of the interim orders by this Court on 20.8.1978. (iii) The findings recorded are valid findings. The provisions as contained in Rule 89A strongly relied upon by Mr. Tandon do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the Instant case as the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 both had appeared before the Munsif-II. 5. (iii) The findings recorded are valid findings. The provisions as contained in Rule 89A strongly relied upon by Mr. Tandon do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the Instant case as the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 both had appeared before the Munsif-II. 5. Mr. Tandon, in reply, contended that the claim of Respondent No. 4 that the decree was also executed is Incorrect and not supported by any material on the record. 6. The question before me is as to whether there has been any error apparent on the face of the record which vitiates the concurrent findings of fact recorded against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5. 7. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, Respondent No. 4 has stated inter-alia, as follows: 28.5.1977. Both the parties were present before Munsif Court No. 2 and the Misc. Case No. 45 of 76 was adjourned to 13.7.1977 (in presence of both the parties paper no. 14 Ga). The aforementioned statements made in the counter-affidavit have not been countered by the Petitioner or by Respondent No. 5. 8. Rule 89A, strongly relied upon by Mr. Tandon, runs as follows: 89A. Procedure to be followed on transfer or withdrawal of cases:- (1) When a case i.e. a suit, appeal or other proceedings in which a date for attendance of a party or the parties in a particular court has been fixed. is transferred from that court to another, the former court shall record the order of transfer in the order sheet and get it signed by counsel of the party or parties; If any party is un-presented information shall be sent to his registered address. The case shall be called out by the other court on the date already fixed by the transferring court and the presence of the parties noted. (2) A note to the effect that a party or the parties have been informed in accordance with Sub-rule (1) shall be made on the record by the transferring court. The case shall be called out by the other court on the date already fixed by the transferring court and the presence of the parties noted. (2) A note to the effect that a party or the parties have been informed in accordance with Sub-rule (1) shall be made on the record by the transferring court. (3) Where cases are transferred in a large number the court from which they are transferred shall, besides following the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (1) draw up a list mentioning in it the numbers and years of the cases and the names of the parties and their counsel and shall cause one copy of it to be posted on the notice-board of the local, bar association for information of the member of the bar and another copy to be pasted on the notice board of the court for information of the general public. It shall also be sent to the other court along with the records of the transferred cases, a copy of the list (or relevant extract of it) the other court shall post it on its own notice-board. If the other court is situated in a different place in which there is another bar association, an extra copy of the list shall be sent to for being pasted on the notice-board of the bar association. (4) The court to which cases are transferred shall not proceed without satisfying itself that the parties or their counsel as the case may be, have been informed of the transfer. (5) In Sub-rules (1) to (4) "transfer" includes withdrawal of a case. 9. in my view the aforesaid provisions cannot be Invoked in the instant case for two reasons: (1) as the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 had already entered appearance in the Misc. Case after its transfer from the court of Munsif-I to the court of Munsif-II and were present on 28.5.77 and (W the order allowing the Misc. Case was not challenged by the Petitioner by filing any application. Thus, the force of the solitary argument of Mr. Tandon disappears. 10. No error apparent on the face of the record could be shown to me by him to vitiate the findings of fact recorded concurrently against the Petitioner and its co-applicant Respondent No. 5, the Principal of the College. 11. Thus, the force of the solitary argument of Mr. Tandon disappears. 10. No error apparent on the face of the record could be shown to me by him to vitiate the findings of fact recorded concurrently against the Petitioner and its co-applicant Respondent No. 5, the Principal of the College. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any case to interfere with the impugned orders. 12. This writ petition is consequently dismissed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances I make no order as to cost.