JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties Facts which are not in dispute between the parties to the present case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff’) filed a suit against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for the recovery of certain amount. This suit was being earlier tried by the Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla before whom the defendant was represented by his counsel. The case was fixed on 7-12-1994 for evidence of the plaintiff. However, when it was called out, the defendants counsel was not present, therefore, it appears that he was proceeded against exparte. After ordering exparte proceedings against the defendant, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the plaintiff on IS-12-1994 itself and reserved the case for judgment. 2. It appears that the learned Counsel for the defendant who was absent when the case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the defendant and when he came to know that his client has been proceeded against ex parte. moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings at 1.30 p, m. on 7-12-1994. 3. This application has been seriously contested and resisted on behalf of the plaintiff and amongst other things, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that after the recording of evidence and hearing arguments, only judgment remained to be pronounced. So, there was no hearing as such left out and accordingly the application was liable to be dismissed. 4. It is also not in dispute that the Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla, before whom the application was filed has not decided the case after having heard it on 7-12-1994, Parties again are not at variance regarding the fact that the suit file alongwith the application under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. filed by the defendant was transferred under the order of District Judge, Shimla to the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class (I), Shimla before whom the application came to be tried on the following issues :— 1. Whether the application under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C is maintainable ? 2. Final order. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the application filed by the defendant under Order 9, Rule 7, C P C has been dismissed, hence this revision petition 6. Whether the application under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C is maintainable ? 2. Final order. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the application filed by the defendant under Order 9, Rule 7, C P C has been dismissed, hence this revision petition 6. On behalf of the defendant, it has been submitted by Shri Gupta that in case the Senior Sub-Judge had pronounced the judgment, after hearing was concluded by him, then his client may not have been able to persist with the application on the basis of a decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 993, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar; which has been followed by the trial Court while dismissing the application in question. According to the learned Counsel for the defendant, after the case had been transferred, the hearing remained to be undertaken by the transferee court which was to pronounce the judgment after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and his client could not be precluded from appearing before the said court and to argue the matter on the basis of the material which was there on the record. So, on this basis, the learned Counsel for the defendant further pointed out that the hearing of the case had not been completed within the meaning of Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. and thus the ratio of the decision supra does not govern the case of his client and on such basis, he has argued that the trial Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and the jurisdiction which has been exercised is not only illegal but is also perverse and the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by his client deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has forcefully argued that so far the hearing of the case is concerned, it stands already concluded and the case in hand is wholly covered by the ratio of the judgment supra. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, after the transfer of the case to the court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class (I), Shimla, for the purposes of Order 9, Rule 7f C. P. C. the hearing remained concluded and thus, the dismissal of the application by the trial Court is perfectly legal and calls for no interference. 8. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, after the transfer of the case to the court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class (I), Shimla, for the purposes of Order 9, Rule 7f C. P. C. the hearing remained concluded and thus, the dismissal of the application by the trial Court is perfectly legal and calls for no interference. 8. I have given my best consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed, It may be appropriate to point out here that the case was admitted not decided on 15-12-1994 by the Senior Sub-Judge, who after proceeding ex parte against the defendant, recorded the evidence and concluded the hearing and thereafter reserved the judgment on 15-12-1994. But before pronouncement of the judgment, application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed on 7-12-1994 itself and when this application was pending before the Senior Sub-Judge, the case was admittedly transferred to another court i. e Sub-Judge, 1st Class (I), Shimla. In this context, it may be appropriate to mention here that the case has to be registered afresh by the transferee court and from that stage, it has to be proceeded for disposal in accordance with law. As such the trial Court was not justified in holding that because the case was listed for judgment, therefore, no hearing was to be undertaken by it. This position would have been correct if the case was pending before the Senior Sub-Judge. But as explained hereinabove, the case was transferred to the court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class (I), Shimla before whom the proceedings were commenced and he had to dispose of in accordance with law after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the ratio of the judgment of the ape x Court supra is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, 9. No other point has been urged either in support or in opposition of this petition. 10. In this view of the matter, the ratio of the judgment of the ape x Court supra is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, 9. No other point has been urged either in support or in opposition of this petition. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the application under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. filed by the defendant will be taken up for consideration by the trial Court, who will record the evidence on affidavits of the parties on the issues framed and if any of the parties want to summon the opposite party/witnesses for cross-examination, needful would be done in accordance with the provisions of Order 19, C. P. C. and thereafter the application will be disposed of in accordance with law. The petitioner will pay the costs of this revision quantified at Rs. 1,000. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent before the parties are heard in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12-7-1996. The Registry will send a copy of this order to the trial Court. Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the application as well as of the main case. Revision petition allowed.