Judgment 1. Heard the parties. In Partition Suit No.111 of 1976, Sukhdeo Thakur was defendant no.1. Inspite of service of summons of the suit he did not appear and died on 2.12.1977. His name was expunged and on 10.3.1978 his widow and three sons were substituted in his place. His substituted heirs also did not appear in the suit and on 18.8.1978 suit was decreed ex parte. Misc. Case No. 51 of 1978 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said ex parte preliminary decree was dismissed on 30.8.1979. M.A.No.236 of 1979 filed in this Court was also dismissed on 4.12.1997 holding that summons of the suit was duly served on those defendants and they had full knowledge of the suit as well as preliminary decree passed therein. 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 herein claim to be sons of deceased daughter (Ram Raj Devi) of late Sukhdeo Thakur who were not substituted. They filed Misc. Case No. 24 of 1995 for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte decree, which was allowed by impugned order dated 13.4.1999. Plaintiff has therefore filed the present revision application. 3. Mr. Shukla, Senior counsel for petitioner submitted that since opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were not parties in the suit, they were not entitled to take recourse to the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was also no prayer for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Case after a long lapse of more than 16 years and placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in Smt. Santosh Chopra V/s. Teja Singh and another ( AIR 1977 Del 110 ), wherein it was held that a person, who was a party though he may be interested in the suit was not entitled to apply under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, Senior counsel for opposite party no.1 placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mangal Singh and others V/s. Naga Singh and others (1962 BLJR 695), wherein it was held that legal heirs of deceased defendant has right to make an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree. 5. 5. In the present case admitted position is that Sukhdeo Thakur was defendant no.1 against whom the suit was proceeding ex parte. However, after his death, widow and sons were substituted but his daughter was left out and thereafter ex parte decree was passed. 6. It is not in dispute that some time thereafter the said daughter died and opposite parties 1 and 2, are her sons, who were entitled in view of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and as such Misc. case no. 24 of 1995 at their instance was maintainable. 7. So far as question of limitation is concerned, on the basis of materials on record the court below found that applicants of Misc. Case No. 24 of 1995 got knowledge of the suit and ex parte decree passed therein only on 11.12.1995 and thereafter inspection of records filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 immediately on 19.12.1995. 8. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed.