JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners defendants have filed this petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the Order dated December 13, 1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 16/1994 by which the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order of the Trial Court dated April 13, 1994 by which the application of the defendants petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the non-petitioner plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners to recover a sum of Rs. 14,000/-. Notices were issued to the defendants. After service, the defendants petitioners filed written statement and inter alia challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the petitioners defendants were agriculturist. The case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence for framing of issues on December 14, 1992. The presiding officer was on leave. The case was adjourned to May 31, 1993. Neither the defendants nor their counsel put any appearance before the Court. The learned Trial Court, therefore, passed ex-parte decree against the defendant. Aggrieved by the above Order, the defendants petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Court who by its Order dated December 13, 1994 dismissed the same. It may be stated that during the pendency of the suit, the case was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Begun. Eventually an ex parte decree was passed. The defendants filed an application for setting aside the decree, but, the application was dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that when the case was pending, it was transferred from Chittorgarh to Begun, but surprisingly, no notice of the transfer of the case was given by the Court, either to the defendants or their advocate. Hence, the decree was passed without notice to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel also submitted that the defendants engaged two counsels at Chittorgarh, but, on the date of hearing none appeared. The defendant told that their advocates would take care of the case. However, the case was decreed ex-parte. 5. Hence, the decree was passed without notice to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel also submitted that the defendants engaged two counsels at Chittorgarh, but, on the date of hearing none appeared. The defendant told that their advocates would take care of the case. However, the case was decreed ex-parte. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that due service was effected on the defendants before the case was transferred to the Begun Court, but, since before transfer, an ex-pane Order has been passed, the petitioners were not entitled to insist for issue of another summons or notice. Thus, it was not necessary for the Transfer Court to have issued notices afresh. 6. Regarding the merits he made a bald statement that the advocates generally did not attend his case, which is devoid of any force. The defendants knew that they had to appear before the Court in the matter of the above Civil Suit. It may also be stated in the memo of Revision Petition, the petitioner only alleged that since the defendant raised a plea that he was an agriculturist, it was the obligatory duty of the Court to decide this point because it goes to the root of the case. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. In my opinion after due service to the defendant, it is not necessary for the Court to issue summons to the defendant when the case is transferred to another Court. Learned counsel cited K.A. v. Bideshi Raghyu Ram Singh, AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh-58 . In this ruling, it was laid down that after transfer of suit parties and their advocates must be informed about the transfer of the suit in 'order to mitigate the hardship to litigants. However, this ruling is not applicable to the present case because in this case the case was transferred to the Begun Court after due service to the defendant. 8. Regarding the allegation that both the advocates engaged by the defendants did not properly take care of the suit, it may be stated that except a bald statement nothing is on record to substantiate the allegation of the defendants. 9. There is a concurrent finding of the fact that the defendants could not show sufficient cause for their absence before the Court. 10. I, therefore, find no cause in the petition and it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******