Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent-petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th of September, 1995 passed by the learned District judge. Katihar in Misc. Appeal No.8/94. By the impugned order and judgment the appellate court set aside the order dated 30th of September, 1994, which was passed by the learned Munsif, katihar in Misc. Case No.18/93. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed one title (Eviction) Suit No.14/89 for eviction of defendant-opposite party. The suit was finally decreed on 22nd of february, 1993. Subsequently the defendant-opposite party filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C. P. C. on the ground that the judgment and decree was passed ex parte without giving any proper hearing to the defendant. The same was registered as Misc. Case No.18/93. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif, Katihar dismissed the same. The defendant opposite party thereafter preferred misc. Appeal No.8/94 against the said order dated 30th of September, 1994 passed in Misc. Case No.18/93. The appeal has been allowed by the impugned order and judgment dated 7th of September, 1995, which is under challenge in the present revision application. 3. The counsel for trie plaintiff petitioner mainly placed reliance on the order dated 30th of September, 1994 passed by the learned Munsif, Katihar in misc. Case No.18/93. It is stated that after notice and summons the defendant-opposite party appeared in the title Eviction Suit No.14/89 and sought time to file written statement. The case was adjourned on different dates at the request of the defendant-opposite parties and/or as the opposite party was absent. The list of such dates has been shown in Annexure-1 to the revision application. On different dates, including 7th of June, 1990,16th of July, 1990, 8th of November, 1990, 3rd of December, 1990 and 6th of August, 1991 etc. the trial court while adjourned the case on the request of the defendant-opposite party with cost, but the defendant even did not choose to pay costs on the subsequent dates. Ultimately, the matter was ordered to be placed for hearing on 19th of August, 1992 and then argument in the suit started since 22nd of September, 1992. The judgment and decree was passed thereafter on 22nd of February, 1993. 4. Two questions were raised by the plaintiff-petitioner while objecting the aforesaid Misc. Ultimately, the matter was ordered to be placed for hearing on 19th of August, 1992 and then argument in the suit started since 22nd of September, 1992. The judgment and decree was passed thereafter on 22nd of February, 1993. 4. Two questions were raised by the plaintiff-petitioner while objecting the aforesaid Misc. Case No.18/93, namely, (a) there was no sufficient cause shown by the defendant to allow the miscellaneous appeal in his favour and (b) the petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of c. P. C. was not maintainable, the judgment and decree not being an ex pane decree, the case having been decided in terms with Order VIII, Rule 10 of C. P. C 5. The learned Munsif, Katihar by order dated 30th of September, 1994 while did not choose to give any benefit in favour of the defendant-opposite party relating to absence on the ground of prevention from sufficient cause. It further held that the petition under order IX, Rule 13 of C. P. C. was not maintainable. The appellate court after discussion of relevant evidences came to its own separate finding that the defendant-opposite party was prevented from sufficient cause from attending the court and filing written statement, being under treatment since 8th of September, 1991 to 24th of July, 1993. 6. The counsel for the defendant-opposite party submitted that though the case having been decided in terms of order VIII, Rule 10 of C. P. C. , but the defendant having failed to submit the written statement being prevented for sufficient cause, the judgment is to be treated as an ex pane judgment for all purposes and thereby the petition under order IX, Rule 13 of C. P. C. was maintainable. He relied on a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gujrat Co-operative Oil Seeds growers Federation V/s. Smt. Ramesh kanta Jain (A. I. R.1994 Delhi page 367)and Supreme Court decision in the case of Prakash Chandra Manchanda and another V. Smt. Janki Manchanda, AIR 1987 S. C.42 and other cases, including air 1982 SC page 1381 (Smt. Sudha devi V/s. M. P. Narayan and Ors. and AIR 1979 Patna page 212 ; 1979 BLJ 479 mathura Singh v, Mathura Pd. Singh and others. and AIR 1979 Patna page 212 ; 1979 BLJ 479 mathura Singh v, Mathura Pd. Singh and others. The counsel for the defendant-opposite party further submitted that the appellate court after going through the relevant exhibits, including the doctors certificate (Ext.1) and the statement of witnesses, including A. W.3 (Dr. B. D. Jha) came to a specific finding that the defendant-opposite party was prevented for sufficient cause from attending the court because of ailment like epilepsy (Murchha) and such finding being based on facts, this Court should not interfere with the same under its revisional jurisdiction. 7. It will be evident from the order dated 30th of September, 1994 passed by the learned Munsif, Katihar that the learned court took into note all relevant dates when the defendant-opposite party appeared and sought adjournment but did not choose to file written statement. It has also taken into note the other relevant dates on which the defendant-opposite party did not choose to appear before the court. It is not in dispute that even after the so called illness of the defendant-opposite party (since 8th of September, 1991) the defendant appeared before the court on different dates up to 4th of February, 1992 and sought for adjournment to file written statement. This fact shows that the disease of the defendant-opposite party (epilepsy and/or Murchha) was not such a disease, to confine him on the bed but he was in a position to move on different dates, when he moved the court and sought permission to file written statement. It is not the case of the defendant-opposite party that on subsequent dates when he failed to appear before the court, in between April, 1992 and August, 1992, and these were the dates when defendant-opposite party actually suffered from the attack of epilepsy (Murchha) and for the said reason he could not attend the court. 8. The trial court while solely relied on the Doctors certificate and the statement of said Doctor, did not choose to discuss the aforesaid fact, including different dates, on which the defendant-opposite party failed to appear before the trial court. It also erred in not discussing the merit or demerit of the order dated 30th of September, 1994, which was impugned before the appellate court. It also erred in not discussing the merit or demerit of the order dated 30th of September, 1994, which was impugned before the appellate court. The learned appellate court nowhere mentioned as to whether the learned Munsif, Katihar erred in coming to the conclusion on merit, which gave rise to give a separate finding by the appellate court. Such finding has been given without differing with the finding of the learned court of Munsif, Katihar. 9. So far as the maintainability of the petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C. P. C. is concerned, the cases referred by the counsel for the defendant-opposite party are not appropriate in the present case. In fact similar case fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Sah V/s. Brij gopal Mundra reported in A. I. R.1991 patna page 60. There the question raised was as to whether a decree passed in terms with Order VIII Rule 10 of c. P. C, on failure of defendant to file written statement despite many adjournment, can be termed to be an exparte decree or not. This Court held that after giving time/adjournment to the defendant if the defendant failed to file written statement and the case is decreed in terms with Order VIII, Rule 10 of C. P. C. , the same cannot be termed to be an ex pane decree within the meaning of Order IX, Rule 13 of C. P. C. Following the aforesaid decision of this court in the case of Satya Narayan Sah (supra), I also hold that the decree which was passed in Title (Eviction)Suit No.14/89 cannot be termed as an ex pane decree within the meaning of order IX, Rule 13 of C. P. C. and thereby the petition, which was filed by the defendant-opposite party was not maintainable. 10. For the reasons stated above, the impugned appellate order dated 7th of September, 1995 passed in Misc. Appeal No.8/94 is set aside. 11. The civil revision application is allowed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Revision Allowed.