MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these Revisions are directed against the interim orders of the trial Court passed, rejecting the petitioners'-Defendants' I. A. No. II under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I. A. III under Order 18, Rule 17, r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O. S. No. 38/1993 pending ex parte on its file. ( 2 ) ). The said O. S. No. 38/1993 has been instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants for recovery of certain amount of money. It is not in dispute that on service of Court summons, petitioners had put in their appearance through their learned counsel in the suit proceeding and had failed to file their written statement within the time granted by the trial Court and also that the learned counsel appearing for them did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 at the trial. Therefore, when the case was, on conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, set down for pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners-defendants came forward with the aforesaid applications, viz. I. A. Nos. II and III, praying that they may be permitted to file the written statement and to recall PW-1 for their cross-examination. ( 3 ) ). Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sujatha v. Indian Bank, reported in ILR 1996 Kant 553, as also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 , which was followed in the case of Sujatha, the trial Court has passed the impugned order, rejecting the said application on the ground that the defendant would not be entitled to reopen a case at the stage when it was posted for judgment. ( 4 ) ). The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ram Bhat inviting attention to the relevant amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contained in sub-rule (4) of Order XVIII as also under Order IX, Rule 6, C. P. C. maintained that the decisions relied on by the trial Court will have no application in view of the corresponding Amendments effected in the said provisions which empowers the trial Court to permit a party to the proceeding to lead any additional material evidence at any stage of the proceeding. The learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs, on the other hand, per contra argued in support of the impugned order. ( 5 ) ). On consideration of rival contentions put forward by both sides, I find sufficient legal force and weight in the contention of Mr. Ram Bhat. ( 6 ) ). First, let me advert to the material provisions in Order IX, Rule 6 and Order XVIII, Rule 2 of C. P. C. The relevant portion of the provision under Order IX, Rule 6 (1) (a) reads :"6. Procedure when only plaintiff appears:- (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then- (a) When summons duly served - if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte; (b) and (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "rule 2 of Order XVIII deals with production of evidence at the trial by the parties. Its material portion is as extracted below:-"2. Statement and Production of evidence - (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. (2) The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. " ( 7 ) ). (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. " ( 7 ) ). It is to be noted that the above-quoted provision under Order IX, Rule 6 (1) (a) has been substituted by amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977 in place of the old provision which read :"6 (1) (A) When summons duly served - If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte;"the afore-quoted provision under sub-rule (4) of Order XVIII, Rule 2 is a new provision which has been inserted by the said Amendment. A combined reading of these relevant provisions in Civil Procedure Code clearly indicate that a significant change has been brought thereby in the trial procedure vesting sufficient power in the trial Court, in the circumstances of the case, to permit a party to a suit proceeding, who is not placed ex parte by its express order, to take any material step and/or to adduced material evidence at any stage of the suit proceeding, even though it may be the stage where the case was set down for pronouncement of judgment. In Sujatha v. Indian Bank (ILR 1996 Kant 553) the pronouncement of this Court to the effect that by virtue of Order IX, Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, a party's application to recall a witness or advance the hearing for any other purpose made when the case was posted for judgment, cannot be entertained was made in view of the provision stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ) supra. Rule 7 of Order IX, C. P. C. runs :"where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance. "it clearly transpires from the judgments in the case of Sujatha of this Court and of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh, both supra, that the pronouncements made therein were with reference to the operational limits of the Order IX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code and that they were made without reference to the aforestated relevant amended provisions in C. P. C. The scope and ambit of Order XVIII, Rule 2 (4) was not under consideration of this Court in the case of Sujatha, and, of course, it could not have been before the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ) since the said amendments in the provisions of Civil Procedure Code had been introduced with effect from 1-2-1977, long after the decision of Supreme Court in the case. Therefore, both these decisions are distinguishable and were not helpful to the trial Court in disposal of I. As. II and III made by the defendants. Due regard being had to the intent of the Legislature in effecting the aforestated Amendments of relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it can be safely stated and held that a party to a suit proceeding could maintain an application even at the stage when the case is posted for judgment, for the purpose of either filing the material pleading or to adduce the material evidence for just and proper decision of the dispute between the parties. This is a salutary principle which has been incorporated in the said provisions of Code of Civil Procedure by Amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977 to meet the ends of justice. As such, the impugned order of the Court below does not sustain in law. However, the petitioners-defendants having not been sufficiently diligent in defending their case before the trial Court, they will have to be imposed with heavy cost in allowing their applications. ( 8 ) ). Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the revisions are allowed. Both the impugned orders of the Court below are set aside. I. As. II and III of petitioners-defendants made in O. S. No. 38/1993 before it are allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs. ( 8 ) ). Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the revisions are allowed. Both the impugned orders of the Court below are set aside. I. As. II and III of petitioners-defendants made in O. S. No. 38/1993 before it are allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- by them to plaintiff within two weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Court below, failing which they would forfeit their right to file the written statement and lead any evidence in support of their defence or in opposing the plaintiff's claim. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .