JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The defendant has filed this revision. 2. Plaintiff-opp. party had filed Money Suit No. 149/87 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. In the said suit, written statement had been filed by the present petitioner. Subsequently, the case was posted to 16.1.1990 for hearing. On the said date, the defendant-petitioner was absent and the case was adjourned to 7.5.1990 for ex parte hearing. Thereafter, the case was being adjourned from time to time and ultimately the case was heard ex parte on 23.8.1994 and judgment was passed on 27.8.1994 decreeing the suit ex parte. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC, for set¬ting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that due to illness from 15.8.1994 to 30.8.1994, the petitioner could not attend the Court on 23.8.1994. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court solely on the ground that the petitioner had not shown any cause for his absence on earlier dates between 16.1.1990 to 15.8.1994. 3. Law is now well settled that even though a person is set ex parte, he is entitled to appear at any subsequent stage of the proceeding and contest the same from that stage onwards. In the present case, the defendant had already filed written statement. When the case was taken up on 23.8.1994, even without seeking for setting aside the earlier order, the petitioner could have participated in the suit from the stage at which it was on 23.8.1994. This position is clear from the decisions reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 425 (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another) and AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993, (Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others). The previous negligence of a party cannot be considered to be a ground for not setting aside an ex parte decision and is not a ground for disbelieving sufficient cause on a particular date. This position is clear in view of the decisions of this Court reported in 38 (1972) CLT 519 (Nanak Chand Khandelwalla and others v. Fakir Chand Khandelwalla and another) and 64 (1987) CLT 196 (M/s. Jaidurga Industries, Jeypore and another v. Union Bank of India). 4. This position is clear in view of the decisions of this Court reported in 38 (1972) CLT 519 (Nanak Chand Khandelwalla and others v. Fakir Chand Khandelwalla and another) and 64 (1987) CLT 196 (M/s. Jaidurga Industries, Jeypore and another v. Union Bank of India). 4. In the present case, the Courts below have believed the case of the petitioner regarding his illness from 15.8.1994 to 30.8.1994, but have rejected his application on the ground that the reasons for earlier absence had not been explained. In view of the position of law, already noticed, such decision of the Courts below cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the ex parte decree is set aside subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) as cost which shall be paid by 17th January, 2000 to the present opp. party or his counsel. The trial Court should dispose of the suit along with the connected case as expeditious¬ly as possible preferably by 13th May, 2000. 5. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.