Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this revision petition against the order dated 7. 5. 1996, by which the Civil Judge allowed the application moved by the defendant under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the order dated 7. 5. 1996 by which the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF had instituted the suit for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. Summons were issued for 1. 5. 1996, on which date the respondent appeared in person and sought time for filing the written statement. The case was adjourned to 7. 5. 1996. On 7. 5. 1996 it transpired that the Presiding Officer did not wish to continue with the case and referred the same to the District Judge for transfer. Parties were directed to appear before the District Judge on 8. 5. 1996. ( 3 ) THE case was then withdrawn from the Court of the then Presiding Officer and Shri S. K. Aggarwal, Civil Judge, was assigned the hearing of the case. The file of the case was also sent to the transferee Court. The transferee Court directed notice to be issued to the defendant for 23. 5. 1996. The case was adjourned to 31. 5. 1996, when the Court accepted the report of the summons server that the defendant had refused to receive the process. The defendant was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. ( 4 ) THE respondent moved the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is claimed by the respondent that he had been misled by petitioner in not appearing. The respondent claims that an understanding had been arrived at with the petitioner by which the latter had agreed to withdraw the suit and attorn to the defendant s a tenant. Respondent remained under the bona fide impression that the petitioner had withdrawn the suit and, therefore, did not pursue the matter. However, the petitioner did not pay the rent as demanded by the respondent. The respondent, therefore, had got a notice served on the petitioner on 26. 9. 1996. After the notice, there was a quarrel between the son of the defendant and plaintiff when the plaintiff disclosed that the present suit was still pending and that the respondent would have to face the consequences. The respondent, therefore, had got a notice served on the petitioner on 26. 9. 1996. After the notice, there was a quarrel between the son of the defendant and plaintiff when the plaintiff disclosed that the present suit was still pending and that the respondent would have to face the consequences. The respondent, accordingly, got a Counsel engaged, had the case file inspected and then moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Civil Judge, having regard to the averments made in the application and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, permitted the defendant/respondent to contest the suit as the same would otherwise amount to denial of justice. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that if this approach is adopted, it Would render the requirement of showing "good cause" for non-appearance under Order IX Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code redundant. Moreover, there was no provision in the Civil Procedure Code which required a fresh Court notice to be sent to the respondent, especially when both the parties had been directed to appear before the District Judge on a specified date. The petitioner states that he had rebutted all the allegations made in the application under Order IX Rule 7, CPC. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the approach adopted by the learned Civil Judge, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, cannot be faulted with. It cannot be said that the case set up by the respondent was absolutely an incredible one. Besides, in any case, the suit was at its initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by permitting the respondent to defend the suit. In fact, the approach and course adopted by the Civil Judge is only subserving the ends of justice, inasmuch as it would result in the disposal of the suit on merits. ( 7 ) THE other option before the Civil Judge was to have the evidence recorded on the application, which, if ultimately allowed, could have been counter-productive for the petitioner in terms of delaying the disposal of the suit. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Lotus International and Ors. ( 7 ) THE other option before the Civil Judge was to have the evidence recorded on the application, which, if ultimately allowed, could have been counter-productive for the petitioner in terms of delaying the disposal of the suit. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Lotus International and Ors. v. Chaturbhujasdass Karnani Textiles (P) Ltd. 65 (1997) DLT 300 (DB)= (1997 (1) AD Delhi 446) has held that if good cause is shown for the absence and the application under Order IX Rule 7 is allowed, the applicant is relegated to the same position which obtained before being set ex-parte. However, in case good cause is not shown by the applicant for the earlier absence and the application is rejected, it is still open to the applicant to join and participate in the proceedings at a later stage, accepting the events which have taken place in the interagnum as they stand. It has been further held that afterjoining the proceedings the defendant is entitled to lead evidence and cross-examine the witnesses of the other party. ( 8 ) APPLYING the above judgment to the instant case, it would be seen that the case is at its especially having regard to the initial stage. Even petitioner s evidence is yet to be recorded. It would cause no prejudice to the petitioner as the defendant could otherwise join the proceedings and be entitled to lead his own evidence in defence and cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.