AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : This is an application in the nature of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling and or setting aside the decree dated 13th May, 1998, passed in Suit No. 494 of 1991 along with prayer for condonation of dealy, if any, also for further or other reliefs in connection thereto. ( 2 ) THE decree was passed as aforesaid on 13th May, 1998, while the application was filed on 15th June, 1998 as available from the record. However, although the application was not made within the prescribed period of one month time but the court accepted the explanation as given in the Supplementary Affidavit and condoned the delay, if any, in makng such application. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, the other questions are open only in respect of maintainability of the application as well as sufficient cause as to the question of recalling and/or setting aside the decree dated 13th May, 1998. ( 4 ) THE question of maintainability come forward because the application is made in the nature of order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code which prescribes for recalling or setting aside the ex-parte decree but where the decree is passed in merit upon judging the consequences by the Court irrespective of absence of one of the party whether application can be made under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code or not. ( 5 ) I have gone through the decree passed by this Court dated 13th May, 1998. ( 6 ) IT appears that at that point of time the Court has considered each and every aspect of the suit which is mainly for specific performance of the agreement for sale being annexure 'a' to the plaint with consequential reliefs therewith. I have adjudged the scope and ambit of the documentary evidence as well as heard the argument put forth by the plaintiff before the court in respect of the suit and passed the judgment and decree which is as follows:"this is a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale, being annexure-A to the plaint, as against the defendants No. s 1, 2 and 3 on October, 13, 1988. Thereafter, the plaintiff called upon the said defendants to execute the deed of conveyance in terms of the said approved deed of conveyance and for that purpose to obtain the income-tax clearance under section 230a of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The defendants in their original written statement, met with this point in paragraph 29 by saying that it is denied that they are not taking any steps for obtaining the income-tax clearance certificate or deliberately postponing the execution of the deed of conveyance. They have further contended that the plaintiff has not performed the various obligations under the said agreement. The plaintiff has not evidenced its readiness and willingness to discharge its obligation under the contract. The plaintiff has committed breaches of the agreement and as such its permissibe occupation of the flat is liable to be withdrawn. The defendants reserved their right to take appropriate steps and filed necessary suit including the monetary claim at the appropriate time. By the Order dated January 1, 1993, learned single Bench of this Hon'ble Court allowed the amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, the defendants elaborated their defence and in addition thereto, they had instituted a suit being No. 623 of 1992, in respect of the aforesaid claim which includes the monetary relief. This suit came up for hearing on various occasions. From a persual of the order of a learned single Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated October 1, 1996, it appears that nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants inspite of service of notice, nor the defendants were present before the Court at the time of hearing. It is also recorded there that the plaintiff's evidence was closed in December, 1995. The learned Judge observed, "the matter is running in the list for a long time, but on successive dates none appears for the defendants and in such circumstances it is presumed that the defendants are not willing to defend the case. Accordingly, the case of the defendants is closed. The matter will appear as "for Argument" on October 15. 1996. Thereafter, the learned single Judge was pleased to release the matter on December 3, 1996. After various occasions, the matter ultimately appeared before this Bench while taking suit matters. Initially nobody turned up on behalf of the defendants. Accordingly, the case of the defendants is closed. The matter will appear as "for Argument" on October 15. 1996. Thereafter, the learned single Judge was pleased to release the matter on December 3, 1996. After various occasions, the matter ultimately appeared before this Bench while taking suit matters. Initially nobody turned up on behalf of the defendants. This Court was pleased to direct the plaintiff to serve another notice upon the defendants' advocate when they turned up and sought for adjournment which was granted or accepted. Today again nobody turned up before this Court when the suit was called on. I allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the suit from the suit from the stage of argument in complinace with the direction given by the learned single Bench of this Hon'ble Court on October 1, 1996. The plaintiff placed two vital documents, being Ext. Z + Z1 and Ext M, the wherefrom it appears that the plaintiff's advocate returned the draft conveyance received from the seller upon being approved. Minor alterations had been made therein as shown in red. A request was made to the defendants to obtain the income-tax clearance certificate under section 230a of the Income-tax. Specifically, in ext M, the defendants have stated that "this is to put on record that we have received full and final payment vide your cheque No. 090478, dt. 14. 10. 88, for Rs. 71416/- being the last and final instalment in respect of the above flat as per agreement dated 23rd day of November, 1985, and are hereby giving you vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in the above premises". They had also approved the conveyance sent by the plaintiff's solicitors and advocates and further stated that they were applying the same for income-tax clearance and should execute the conveyance within 12 months from the date thereof. Therefore, the statement made by the plaintiff has been corroborated by the exhibits. Under such circumstances, I do not feel that the suit should be liable to be pending. I hereby pass a decree in terms of prayer (a) of the plaint. There will also be a decree in terms of prayer (b ). There will be a further decree to form a new co-operative society if the existing co-operative society is not operated to render all sorts of assistance in terms of clause 36 of the agreement. I hereby pass a decree in terms of prayer (a) of the plaint. There will also be a decree in terms of prayer (b ). There will be a further decree to form a new co-operative society if the existing co-operative society is not operated to render all sorts of assistance in terms of clause 36 of the agreement. There will be no decree for damages in view of th decree passed in respect of specific performance. No other reliefs are granted. The cost is assessed at Rs. 10,000/ -. The decree will be drawn up expeditiously. Department and all parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings. " ( 7 ) FROM the above, it appears that the Court has considered the balance of convenience not only in respect of hearing of the suit but also in respect of passing of decree in respect of the suit as per the merit. ( 8 ) IN a suit for specific performance of the contract normally a party claiming for specific performance and in lieu of or in addition to his claim for specific performance ask for moentary relief. On the other hand, the defendant or defendants make their defence or file a fresh suit asking for monetary relief on account of damages as a counter blast of claim of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) IN the instant case also it appears from the records of the suit for specific performance that possession was delivered, coveyance was approved, income tax clerance was asked for and to that extent commitment is given by the other party, therefore, the execution of conveyance is mere formality as I found at the time of passing the decree. Therefore, passing of a decree in this respect is mere formality when the same was done accordingly. ( 10 ) THE question of granting any monetary relief on account of damages towards the defendants in their suit being No. 623 of 1992 is still subsisting. ( 11 ) UNDER such circumstances, how the defendants will becom prejudiced if not the decree is recalled and/or set aside passed in plaintiff's suit is unknown to this Court. If the defendant being plaintiff in the other suit is entitled for any relief, they will be entitled for the same which is in no way connected with the prayers herein. If the defendant being plaintiff in the other suit is entitled for any relief, they will be entitled for the same which is in no way connected with the prayers herein. ( 12 ) THE petitoner herein has taken a technical plea by showing an order dated 20th January, 1993 passed by single Bench of this Hon'ble Court relevant part of which says "that since the evidence both oral and documentary may be largely common in this suit being suit No. 494 of 1991 as well as defendants' suit being suit No. 623 of 1993, the evidence taken in suit No. 494 of 1991 will also be evidence in suit No. 623 of 1992". ( 13 ) FIRSTLY, this order dated 20th January, 1993 passed by a single Bench of this Hon'ble Court for the sake of judicial administration of that Court alone and for convenience of the parties there which cannot have any binding effect before this Court. ( 14 ) SECONDLY, on 1st October, 1996 when this suit again appeared before another single Bench after closing of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff in December, 1995, none appeared on behalf of the defendant on successive dates. In such circumstances, it was presumed by such single Bench that defendant/petitioner herein is not willing to defend the case and accordingly the case of the defendant was closed. ( 15 ) NO one preferred an appeal from the order. Therefore, the same has a binding effect upon the parties. ( 16 ) UNDER such circumstances, if the Court recalled and set aside the decree on that ground the same will also be revival of the order of a single Bench of this Court on 1st October, 1996 which cannot be permissable at all. On the other hand, since the evidence in respect of the present suit is not available under such order, the evidence already given by a party will be evidence in respect of the other suit being suit No. 623 of 1992 as and when the same will be heard. But for such reason as to-why the decree will be recalled in unknown to this Court. Therefore, I cannot find any reason to recall and/or setting aside the decree on the above ground. ( 17 ) IN case of recalling and/or setting aside or for restoration of any suit, application etc. But for such reason as to-why the decree will be recalled in unknown to this Court. Therefore, I cannot find any reason to recall and/or setting aside the decree on the above ground. ( 17 ) IN case of recalling and/or setting aside or for restoration of any suit, application etc. sufficient cause on the day and time an honest approach of the defaulted party attracts, the discretion of the Court to pass an appropriate order. ( 18 ) IN the instant case, actual explanation is given in paragraphs 12 and 15 of the petition by saying that the learned counsel was under the impressing that seven part-heard suits which were appearing before the instant suit may be taken up and left the Court upon putting the Court clerk in the court room to watch the list and thereafter when it was informed that there is a run in the list came back and found that decree has already passed. Save and except such explanation no other explanation has come forward which will give sufficient cause for the purpose of recalling and/or setting aside the decree passed by the Court on 13th May, 1998. ( 19 ) ON the other hand, respondent/decree-holder made categorical statements in dealing with such statement of the petitioner by saying that the suit was mentioned upon notice by the end of March, 1998. The suit was directed to be listed on 6th April, 1998. On 13th April, 1998 argument was made by the plaintiff i. e. the respondent/now decree-holder and the same was made partly heard. Therefore, the petitioners had their knowledge in all respects in hearing the suit. ( 20 ) IN any event, I do not find that the explanation as given by the petitioner is acceptable. This Court is making three calls in respect of suits for the purpose of disposal either way. I never encourage any matter to be dismissed or ex-parte decree is to be passed in the first call even in the second call by following the original side rules strictly only to appreciate the difficulties of the members of the Bar. Therefore, the sufficient cause about the day and time as given by the petitioner is not acceptable being inappropriate. Therefore, the sufficient cause about the day and time as given by the petitioner is not acceptable being inappropriate. ( 21 ) HENCE, the application is no way approaches the mind of the Court for the purpose of granting any relief or reliefs to the petitoner as sought for. Therefore, the same is dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. ( 22 ) PRAYER for stay made, considered and is refused. All parties to act on a signed copy minutes of the operative part of this Judgment upon usual undertakings. Petition dismissed.