Honble SAXENA, J.–Defendant petitioner by filing these writ petitions has prayed that orders of the Board of Revenue dated 1.1.96 (Ann. 5) and dated 7.2.96 (Ann. 6), the order dated 7.2.96 (Ann. 11) passed by the Assistant Collector, Chomu (District Jaipur) respondent No. 2, as also subsequent proceedings in the revenue suits NOs. 451/1984 & 452/1984, taken in his absence be quashed & set aside. (2). The admitted skeletal facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are that on 3.2.84, respondent Chhitar filed afore mentioned two suits in Court of Asstt. Collector, Chomu for correction of entries in the record of rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in respect of the disputed agriculture lands against his brothers viz. Raghuvar (petitioner) & Prabhu with the averments that the disputed land was given to him for cultivation by the then Thikana Chomu, that he was in exclusive cultivatory possession thereof and paying the land revenue and that the names of Raghuvar and Prabhu were wrongly entered as co-sharers in the record of rights. On 30.6.84 a consent written statement was filed on behalf of petitioner Raghuvar. On 4.6.85 the petitioner was not present, hence order for pro- ceeding ex parte against him was passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner on 13.9.85 filed an application under O. 9 R. 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte proceedings drawn against him, which was dismissed on 30.4.88. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application dated 7.5.88 under O. 6 R. 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, which was dismissed on 3.12.88 as not pressed. However, on the same day, the petitioner filed yet another application under O. 6, R. 17, CPC read with Section 151, CPC for amendment in his written statement. Co-defendant Prabhu expired during the trial. Hence Mohan, respondent No. 4 was impleaded as his legal representative vide order dated 30.1.91. After hearing parties the Assistant Collector by his order dated 17.7.91 (Ann. 2) allowed petitioners application for amendment subject to a cost of Rs. 1100/-. On 31.7.91, the amended written statement was filed by the petitioner, however, the counsel for the plaintiff (Chhitar) refused to accept the costs. Chhitar thereafter filed a revision petition against the order Annx. 2 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, which was ultimately dismissed by the Board by its order dated 1.1.96 (Ann. 1100/-. On 31.7.91, the amended written statement was filed by the petitioner, however, the counsel for the plaintiff (Chhitar) refused to accept the costs. Chhitar thereafter filed a revision petition against the order Annx. 2 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, which was ultimately dismissed by the Board by its order dated 1.1.96 (Ann. 5) on the sole ground that as the order for proceeding exparte against the petitioner had become final, he ceased to be a party in the suit and since he was a non-existent party to the suit, he could not get any relief under O. 6, R. 17, CPC. The Board further observed that if the petitioner wanted to amend his pleadings, it was sine qua non for him to get himself impleaded as party in the suit. The Board, therefore, did not decide the pe- titioners application under O. 6, R. 17, CPC on merits. Petitioners review petition against the said order Annex. 5 was also dismissed by the Board vide its order dated 7.2.96 (Ann. 6). Hence this writ petition. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the relevant record in extenso. Order 9, Rule 7, CPC lays down that where the defendant appears on the day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for his non-appearance and then the Court may on such costs or otherwise set aside ex parte order and the defendant may be heard in answer to the suit. (4). In Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (1) referring to the effect of rejection of the application made under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC, the Apex Court has held that if a party does appear on the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, he cannot be stopped from participating in the proceedings simply because he did not appear in the first or some other hearing. But, though he has the right to appear at an adjourned hearing, he has no right to set back the hands of the clock. Order 9, Rule 7, CPC makes that clear. (5). In Om Prakash vs. Amarjit Singh (2), the defendants application under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC was dismissed by the trial Court but the High Court on revision remanded the matter back for fresh disposal. The remand order assumed finality in absence of any appeal against it. Order 9, Rule 7, CPC makes that clear. (5). In Om Prakash vs. Amarjit Singh (2), the defendants application under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC was dismissed by the trial Court but the High Court on revision remanded the matter back for fresh disposal. The remand order assumed finality in absence of any appeal against it. Relying on the principle of law enunciated in Arjun Singhs case (supra), the Apex Court observed that the defendant while parti- cipating in further proceedings cannot seek to be relegated to the original position. It was further observed that it is true that it would not be necessary for a party to get rid of an order placing him ex parte if the party wishes to participate in the proceedings at any particular stage onwards provided that he does not seek to be relegated to the position, he would have occupied if he had appeared at the earlier hearing or hearings and does not seek to set back the hands of the clock. It means that he must accept all that has gone before and be content to proceed from the stage at the stage at which he has come in. It was, therefore, held that the defendant was not entitled to adduce fresh evidence and to recall the plaintiffs witnesses as he cannot be allowed to be relegated to the original position. (6). A similar view has been taken by this Court in Babulal vs. Banshidhar Sharma (3), wherein it has been reiterated that the defendant against whom ex parte proceedings have been ordered cannot be refused permission to participate in the proceedings from the stage, he was not present in the Court, but he shall not be relegated to earlier position. (7). Therefore, unless the defendant can show good cause, he must accept all that has gone before and be content to proceed from the stage at which he comes in. The evidence of the plaintiff might be taken and the defendant can be allowed to cross examine his witnesses. He can also file an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC but such applications have to be decided by the Court on merits and such a defendant cannot be shut off simply on the ground that his application for setting aside the order has been filed. He can also file an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC but such applications have to be decided by the Court on merits and such a defendant cannot be shut off simply on the ground that his application for setting aside the order has been filed. It is needless to mention that simply because an order for ex parte proceeding has been passed against the defendant, and even if such an order becomes final still then he neither becomes non-existant party nor ceases to be a party in the suit. (8). In the instant case, the petitioner was legally entitled to participate in the proceedings of the suit from 13.9.85, even though his application for setting aside the order of exparte proceeding was rejected by the Assistant Collector and against which no appeal/revision was filed. In view of this, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has committed patent error and material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner has become a non-existant party or ceased to be party in the suit and that without getting himself first impleaded as a defendant in the suit, he was not entitled to file an application under O. 6, R. 17, CPC. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue has also failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in not deciding the petitioners application dated 3.12.88 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on merits. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. The learned Assistant Collector has also committed an illegality in passing the impugned order dated 7.2.96 (Ann. 11) and in denying the petitioner to participate in the trial of the suit by rejecting his application u/S. 151 CPC. (9). In the premise of the above discussion, these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders dated 1.1.96 & 7.2.96 (Ann. 5 & 6 respectively) passed by the learned Board of Revenue are hereby quashed and set aside and these cases are remanded to the Board of Revenue with the direction that it should decide petitioner Raghuvars revision petitions in both the suits regarding his application dated 3.12.88 filed under O. 6 Rule 17, CPC read with Section 151, CPC on merits. The order dated 7.2.96 (Ann. 11) passed by the Assistant Collector, Chomu in both the suits are also set aside. The order dated 7.2.96 (Ann. 11) passed by the Assistant Collector, Chomu in both the suits are also set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to re-call the plaintiffs witnesses, who were examined in his absence and cross examine them, but it is made clear that he shall not be relegated back to the earlier position prior to 14.6.85 when the order for proceeding ex parte against him was passed. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on 16.3.98. As the litigation between the parties is pending since 1984, it is expected that the Board as also the Assistant Collector shall expeditiously decide the matter. No order as to costs.