JUDGMENT (1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The prayer off the petitioners-landlord-defendants of the suit filed for recovery of possession by respondent No. 1 tenant-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which was decreed ex- parte by the trial court, is to quash the order dated 19-3-1979 passed by the IIIrd Additional Munsif, Mirzapur rejecting their application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and for setting aside the ex-parte decree as well as the appellate order dated 21-5-1980 passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur dismissing their Miscellaneous Appeal No. 81 of 1979. (2.) THE portrayal of the relevant facts are in extremely narrow compass. By the impugned order dated 19-3-1979 the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code was rejected only on the ground that the ex-parte decree had merged in the orders passed in the earlier appeal and revision which, however, were dismissed as not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the earlier appeal and revision were dismissed as not maintainable the trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code by invoking the doctrine of merger which applies only in such cases in which the appeal and/or revision are maintainable and are decided on merit. Since the petitioner's earlier appeal and revision both were dismissed as not maintainable the petitioners had correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code. (3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been assigned by the courts below for rejecting the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code besides since this writ petition has remained pending for about 15 years this Court should not exercise its discretion as it is open for the petitioners-landlord to file a suit for eviction of Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. (4.) IN my view the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are sound. The doctrine of merger, envoked by the trial court for rejecting the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code could have been applied only if the earlier appeal and revision were maintainable and not which were dismissed on account of their non-maintainability. The doctrine of merger, envoked by the trial court for rejecting the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code could have been applied only if the earlier appeal and revision were maintainable and not which were dismissed on account of their non-maintainability. The trial court has thus wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code. (5.) IT is true that it is open for any landlord to file a suit for eviction against his tenant in accordance with law. However, simply because this writ petition has remained pending for 15 years before this Court and the petitioners can take recourse to such an action in the peculiar facts and circumstances this cannot be a ground for throwing out the writ petition as the petitioners application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code was required to be disposed of on merit but it was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground of non-maintainability which justice requires correction. 8. In the result this writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 19-3-1979 and 21-5-1980 aforementioned are quashed and Respondent No. 2 namely, the IIIrd Additional Munsif, Mirzapur is commanded to dispose of the petitioners application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code in accordance with law. 9. Since this matter has remained unfortunately pending for about 15 years in this Court, I direct the petitioners and Respondent No. 1 to appear before the Respondent No. 2 along with a certified copy of this judgment on 9th October, 1995 and the lists of documents alongwith them on which one or other intend to reply as wall as the lists of witnesses which they intend to examine in support of their respective claims and thereafter a firm date of hearing shall be fixed which will be conducted day to day strictly adhering to the provisions of Order XVII of the Code. 10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances I make no order as to cost. 11. Let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly. Petition allowed.