JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. The applicant/wife moved an application under Order 9, Rule l3, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree with an application under Section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay and extension of time for late filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. As the non-applicant joined the issue the Trial Court directed that evidence of the parties shall be recorded on the question of sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. The applicant examined herself but the non-applicant did not lead any evidence. 2. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court finding that there did not exist any sufficient cause for late filing of the application under Ordre 9, Rule 13, CPC, it rejected the application by the impugned order. It appears that by an order recorded in proceedings, the lower Court also rejected the main petition, filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. 3. Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Court below is based on mis-construction of the evidence and the findings if not perverse, are bad in law. He submits that the evidence available on the record clearly shows that the present applicant never refused service of the notice. 4. Mr. Kale, learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that as the main petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC has been dismissed, present revision petition shall not be maintainable because the present applicant was required to file an appeal under Rule 1 of Order 43 of Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Taking the objection of Mr. Kale first, this Court is required to decide that what is the effect of the dismissal of the applicant's application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC on the maintainability of this revision petition. 6. Undisputedly, the order impugned did not reject the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. By a separate order, the main petition was dismissed. It was expected of the Trial Court that it shall inform the parties by the very same order that the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC shall also stand dismissed as the delay in filing the application was not condoned. Even otherwise, the dismissal of application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was based on the foundation of the first order under which application under Section 5, Limitation Act was rejected. Even otherwise, the dismissal of application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was based on the foundation of the first order under which application under Section 5, Limitation Act was rejected. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the delay deserves to be condoned, then the very foundation on which the second order was passed would be removed. It is trite law that if an order which provides foundation for a subsequent order is set aside or annulled, then all subsequent orders would fall. This also cannot be lost sight of that against the order of dismissal of an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC, an appeal would lie to this very Court, the limitation, Court fee and Forum would be the same. A technicality would not come in, the way of this Court merely on the ground that nomenclature of the present matter is a civil revision. The objection raised by Mr. Kale deserves to and is accordingly over-ruled. 7. In the statements recorded before the Court below the present applicant has stated through an interpreter that "xxxxxxxxxx". 8. It is to be noticed that the applicant is a Telgu speaking woman. She did not understand Hindi or English and the Presiding Judge did not understand Telgu. In fact what has been recorded by the Court is a translation of the statement given by the present applicant. A little possibility of mis-interpretation cannot be ruled out. If the statement is read in its true perspective, it would mean that if the notice was received by her, she would not have refused it, nor she did refuse it. A statement made by party, if is unambiguous, may provide a foundation for the order, but the statement should not be read out of the context, or without reference to the dispute. The very next line of her statement shows that she did not refuse any registered letter presented to her. The sum total of her statement would be that the registered letter was not presented to her and she did not refuse the service. If that is the statement and no cross-examination was made by the non-applicant, then in the opinion of this Court, a sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. The order passed by the Court below is based on misconception of law and mis-reading of the evidence. If that is the statement and no cross-examination was made by the non-applicant, then in the opinion of this Court, a sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. The order passed by the Court below is based on misconception of law and mis-reading of the evidence. It deserves to and is accordingly set aside. As this order is being set aside, the foundation for dismissal of the main petition would not be available. Order dated 10.7.1993, passed in the proceedings is also set aside. MJC11 /90 is restored back to its original number. The Trial Court is directed to decide the said application on its merits after giving proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 20.10.1997. The Registry is directed to remit the records immediately so as to reach that Court on or before that day. The revision is allowed. No costs. 9. Before parting with the case, a word of advice to the learned Court below is necessary. When an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC is filed with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application is also filed, then the cause for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex-parte decree or order is almost on the same grounds. If the Court finds that there is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, then the said cause would be good and sufficient for setting aside the ex-parte decree or order. In the instant case, the Court below did not properly appreciate that what it was required to decide. In future the Court below shall keep in mind that if the ground for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex-parte decree is same, then piece-meal trial is not only waste of the time of the Court, but is also illegal because once the Court comes to the conclusion that there was sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, then contrary to its own findings, it cannot record that there was no sufficient cause for restoration of suit or for setting aside the ex-parte decree or order. It is made clear that these observations are made for the guidance. As the lower Court has adopted its own procedure, it shall decide the matter in accordance with law.