Honble YADAV, J.–Heard. (2). Perused the order impugned dated 16.5.97 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application moved by defendant revisionist under O.9, R.7 CPC for setting aside the order to proceed ex parte against him although allowed to participate in the further progress of the suit. (3). Indisputably, the present suit was filed by two sons and one daughter of the present defendant revisionist Swami Bharat Satyrathi @ Bharat Singh in the year 1993. The contesting defendants filed their written statement and necessary issues were framed. Both the parties were directed to adduce their evidence and they adduced their oral and documentary evidence. The defendant revisionists wife Smt. Suman appeared as a witness in the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs who were none else but the defendant revisionists two sons and one daughter. (4). From perusal of record it appears that when the trial of the suit was about to be concluded, the defendant revisionist made a desperate attempt to stall the final decision of the suit on merit in the garb of moving the present application un- der Order 9, Rule 7 CPC. This exercise of delaying final decision on merit of the suit is also inferable from his attempt in moving an application under O.1, R.10 CPC for his impleadment as a party in the suit whereas it was within his knowledge that he is already impleaded as defendant No.6 in the suit. In fact, the earlier application moved under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was with an oblique motive to give a true colour to the present application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC. It is unbelievable that the defendant revisionist had moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC without making inspection of the record of the suit. No one can be presumed to have moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC in a suit without making inspection of the record as to whether his right, title, or interest is affected by the suit or not. (5). The aforesaid conduct of the revisionist, in the present case, leads towards an irresistible conclusion that he got the present suit filed by his two sons and one daughter and also got his wife appeared as a witness. (5). The aforesaid conduct of the revisionist, in the present case, leads towards an irresistible conclusion that he got the present suit filed by his two sons and one daughter and also got his wife appeared as a witness. Thus he has full knowledge about progress and pendency of the suit from the date of its initiation upto its final stage and has moved the present application under O.9 R.7 CPC only to stall the final decision of the suit on its merit on the ground that there has been an irregularity in service of the summons on him. (6). It is to be noticed that under O.9 R.13 an amendment is introduced by Act No. 104 of 1976 which is made enforceable w.e.f. 1.2.77 which reads thus:- Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of the summons if it is satisfied that the defendant has notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim. (7). I am of the opinion that by necessary implication the amendment inserted under O.9 R.13 CPC can also be extended to the provisions made under Order 9, R.7 CPC. To my mind, mere irregularity of the service of summons cannot form part for setting aside an order to proceed ex parte provided the Courts are satisfied that defendants had got notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim. In the present case, indisputably, defendant No.6 (revisionist) had knowledge of date of hearing and had also sufficient time to app- ear and answer the plaintiffs case, therefore, merely on the ground that there was some irregularity in service of summons on him cannot be held to be a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned order to proceed ex parte. (8). In my considered opinion, the defendant has no vested right to stall the final decision of the suit on merit by moving the present application under O.9 R.7 CPC. The learned trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error in allowing the defendant revisionist to participate in the further progress of the suit pending before him. (9). As a result of aforementioned discussion, the instant revision petition is dismissed with special costs of Rs. The learned trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error in allowing the defendant revisionist to participate in the further progress of the suit pending before him. (9). As a result of aforementioned discussion, the instant revision petition is dismissed with special costs of Rs. 1100/- which is made payable by defendant re- visionist to contesting respondent No.4 namely Shri Satish Choudhary.