JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.4.1994 passed by the then-Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatbhata (Chittorgarh) in Civil Suit No. 14/93 whereby application filed u/O. 9 R. 7 CPC by the defendant-petitioner was dismissed holding that no good cause was shown for filing of this application as late as on 5.1.1994 and not before. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the defendant-petitioner and so also the defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 being represented by their counsel Shri H.N. Sharma, on 1.10.1993, when the order for proceeding ex-parte against the defendants was passed, Shri Sharma, without informing the defendants abruptly left for Jaipur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the defendant-petitioner and so also the defendant-non-petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 being represented by their counsel Shri H.N. Sharma, on 1.10.1993, when the order for proceeding ex-parte against the defendants was passed, Shri Sharma, without informing the defendants abruptly left for Jaipur. Shri Sharma, who was a candidate in the elections of the State Legislative Assembly held in the months of October-November, 1993, was busy in connection with the elections and for the very purpose he had to visit Jaipur and so Shri Sharma could not inform any of the defendants and, besides, the Tehsildar of Rawatbhata, who was also Administrator of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, since he was also busy in connection with the ensuing elections and, therefore, he could not contact Shri Sharma about the proceedings and the order dated 1.10.1993 passed by the learned trial Judge and so none could be present before the Court on 19.11.1993 and, lastly, the petitioner has filed application for setting aside the order of proceeding ex-parte against the defendants duly supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri Sharma and so further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were sufficient grounds for non-appearance of Shri Sharma on 1.10.1993 and for non-filing of the application prior to 5.1.1994 and, in the aforesaid circumstances, when no material progress has been made in the suit itself during the intervening period and, instead, since the defendants were represented by Government officers and, therefore, the delay so made in filing of the application stands sufficiently explained and that a good cause has been shown against non-appearance of the defendants on 1.10.1993 and subsequent thereto before filing of this petition and, in the circumstances, the impugned order has been passed while committing a serious irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court and the same has occasioned a failure of justice to the petitioner and, accordingly, the same maybe set aside. 4. However, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has seriously opposed this petition arguing that the cause shown by the petitioner for non-appearance on 1.10.1993 is not good enough for non-filing of the application before 5.1.1994 and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. 4. However, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has seriously opposed this petition arguing that the cause shown by the petitioner for non-appearance on 1.10.1993 is not good enough for non-filing of the application before 5.1.1994 and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the rival contentions and having regard to the fact that the averments of the application are duly supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri Sharma, Advocate, and the disputed property is claimed by the petitioner whereas, on the other hand, the plaintiff-non-petitioner has advanced a claim in the same property and in view of the circumstances that the petitioner has shown a good cause for non-appearance of their counsel as well as the Administrator. of the Petitioner-Gram Panchayat on 1.10.1993 and subsequent thereto before 5.1.1994 and, in view of these circumstances, the learned trial Judge appears to have committed a material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction and in case the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will in all probabilities, likely to result in irreparable injury to the petitioner and, hence, this petition warrants acceptance. 6. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.4.1994 is hereby set aside and, consequently, the application dated 5.1.1994 filed by the petitioner stands accepted resulting in setting aside ex-parte order dated 1.10.1993. However, this order shall be operative on the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs to the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the trial Court. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly along with the connected stay petitionLet a copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial Court for information.Revision Allowed with cost. *******