Judgment 1. This Revision application is directed against the order dated 11.3.99 passed by District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No: 47/98, whereby he has dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 3.9.98 passed by Munsif, Dhanbad in Misc. Case no.21 /98 rejecting the petitioners application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. 2. Plaintiff/Opposite party instituted Title (Eviction) suit No. 66/93 of the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad praying for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. Summons of the suit was issued by the Trial Court which was received by the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner appeared by filing Vakalatnama but neither filed written statement nor contested the suit. The court below ultimately decreed the suit exparte. Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the decree on the ground inter-alia that she was residing at Punjab with her mother-in-law, and she neither appeared in the suit nor she has filed any vakalatnama or hazri whatsoever. It is further alleged that on account of differences with herhusband she had gone to stay at Punjab with her mother-in-law. When the differences with her husband was sorted out and settled, she came back. Thereupon her husband informed the petitioner that the opposite party instituted a suit for eviction. It is contended that the petitioner thereupon made enquiries and learnt that the opposite party obtained exparte decree against her. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was registered as Misc. Case no. 21/98 of the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad. The opposite party appeared and opposed the said application on various grounds. The Trial Court ultimately rejected the application holding that the petitioner failed to prove sufficient cause for non appearance. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 47/98 which was dismissed by the District Judge, Dhanbad by the impugned order. 3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly defendant did not appear in the suit nor filed the written statement and therefore decree passed aaainst her is nothina but exoarte decree and the appliance under order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. is maintainable. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly defendant did not appear in the suit nor filed the written statement and therefore decree passed aaainst her is nothina but exoarte decree and the appliance under order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. is maintainable. Learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that the defendant/petitioner appeared through her husband and the Court proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C, the decree passed in the suit can be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. 4. On the other hand Mr. Devi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party submitted that husband of the petitioner appeared by filing vakalatnama as power of Attorney holder and he took as many as 17 adjournments for filing written statement and ultimately when no written statement was filed the court passed the decree. Learned counsel submitted that it cannot be believed that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge about the decree and therefore in such circumstances the decree cannot be setaside. Learned counsel also produced before me copy of the objection filed by the husband of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. stating inter-alia that the petitioner was informed time and again about the suit but she did not want to contest the suit. 5. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the records of the Trial Court which was called for, I am of the opinion that the ground taken by the petitioner in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 are false and devoid of any substance. From the record of the Trial Court it appears that husband of the petitioner appeared in the suit as an Attorney Holder of the petitioner and filed petitions on various dates seeking time for filing written statement on the ground that his wife the petitioner was residing at Punjab. In same petitions it was stated that the written statement could not be filed because of lack of necessary documents. It appears that from 5.6.95 to 15.4.96 the suit was adjoourned by the Trial Court giving time to the husband of the petitioner for filing written statement. In same petitions it was stated that the written statement could not be filed because of lack of necessary documents. It appears that from 5.6.95 to 15.4.96 the suit was adjoourned by the Trial Court giving time to the husband of the petitioner for filing written statement. However, on 21.6.96 husband of the petitioner filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. In para 4 of the petition it was stated that the applicant was writing to his wife letter to come back but she was keeping mum and has no intention to come back and contest the suit. The said application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was rejected by the Court below. Ultimately suit was posted for evidence and the judgment was delivered on 18.8.98. From perusal of the order passed by the Court below under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. it appears that the Trial Court took into consideration the fact that the suit was filed for non payment of rent since July 1992 and admittedly no rent was paid either by the petitioner or her husband and the arrears came to Rs. 35,000/-. Not only that petitioner did not want to contest the suit for the reason best known to her despite notice and knowledge about the same, the Appellate Court also found that petitioner had notice and knowledge about the institution of the suit and passing of the decree. 6. At this stage it would be worth to quote second proviso of Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. which reads as under : "Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed exparte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim." 7. In the instant case it was rightly submitted by Mr. Devi Prasad learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that it cannot be believed that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge about the hearing of the suit and passing of the decree. 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court beiow. There is no merit in the Revision application, which is accordingly dismissed.