RIPUSUDAN DAYAL, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Re vision is directed against the Order dated 7th august, 2000 by the Learned Civil Judge, East, gangtok in Civil Suit No 19 of 2000 Petitioners were defendant Nos 1 and 2, respodent nos 1 and 2 were proforma defendant Nos 3 and 4 and respondent No 3 was the plaintiff in the Civil Suit. ( 2 ) THE Civil Suit from which the Civil revision has arisen was filed by the plaintiff for a decree of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property in suit detailed in schedule II of the plaint, the property being his self-acquired property and also for a direction to defendant Nos 1 and 2 to vacate a portion of the same, as detailed in the plaint it is admitted before us that respondent Nos 3 and 4. though had been served with summonses, did not participate in the proceedings till 2nd August, 2000 It is fairly conceded that they were watching the proceedings They neither filed any written statement nor chose to cross-examine any of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and defendant Nos 1 and 2 evidence of the plaintiff was closed prior to 2nd August, 2000 and evidence of defendant nos 1 and 2 was closed on 2nd August, 2000 on the closure of the evidence, the case was posted for arguments Thereafter, an oral submission was made on behalf of defendant Nos 3 and 4 that they wished to render their evidence The order dated 2nd August, 2000 reads as under -"2/8/2000 Plaintiff with Ld Counsel shri N P Sharma Defendents No 1-4 present Recorded the evidence of DWS, t Upreti and Laxmikant Dulal defendents 1 and 2 close evidence Now to come up for arguments However the defendant 3 and 4 submit that they wish to render their evidence for evidence DE of 3 and 4 hearing for 4 8. 2000 "on 4th August, 2000, an application was filed by defendant Nos 3 and 4 stating that during evidence a number of new facts had come from defendent No 1 and his witness which were beyond the pleadings and were also incorrect and, therefore, they wished to participate in the further proceeding and to lead evidence to state the factual position regarding the property which is the subject matter of the suit. Prayer made is that the Court may allow them to participate "in the remaining proceeding" in the suit in the interest of justice. ( 3 ) FROM the above narration, it is clear that defendant Nos 3 and 4 filed the application after the evidence had been closed by the plaintiff and also defendant Nos 1 and 2 and the case had been posted for arguments If defendant No 1 was leading wrong evidence on facts or beyond pleadings, defendant Nos 3 and 4 could cross-examine defendant No 1 and his witness. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not choose to do so It is true that defendant nos 3 and 4 are entitled to participate in the remaining proceedings Remaining proceedings now are the final arguments. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned trial court allowed defendant Nos 3 and 4 the fresh opportunity to produce evidence subject to fresh opportunity being given to defendant No 1 to produce evidence in rebuttal, if any We are of the opinion that since defendant Nos 3 and 4 did not choose to file written statement and made the application after the evidence had been closed and the case had been posted for arguments, defendant Nos 3 and 4 could not be allowed to produce evidence. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent Nos 1 and 2 relies upon the single Judge decision in Radhamoni Padhiari v T. Jaganatham in that case, the suit was posted to 17th February, 1977 for ex-parte hearing. On the adjourned date, an application under Order IX rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which the learned trial Judge rejected on 2nd march, 1997 Before the Civil Revision was filed in the High Court, the suit had been decreed ex-parte on 13th May, 1997 The question before the Court was whether the defendant was entitled to participate in the further proceedings of the case. It was held that the defendant was entitled to participate in the further proceedings In this proposition of law there is absolutely no doubt and this proposition of law has been accepted by us and accepting this proposition, we are inclined to hold that defendant Nos 3 and 4 are entitled to participate in the further proceedings means on the facts of this case the stage of arguments ( 5 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed, the impugned order of the learned trial Court is set-aside It is, however, made clear that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 shall be entitled to make arguments In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .