SHARMA, Member.–This is revision petition filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the order of Assistant Collector, Beawar passed in suit No.53/98 dated 19.12.2000 whereby the application of the present applicant filed under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was rejected. Brief facts of this case are that there was one suit pending before the Court of Assistant Collector, Beawar under Section 88 and 188 of the Tenancy Act which was registered as suit No.53/98. This suit was dismissed in default on 18.12.98 due to non-appearance of the plaintiff and respondent. Before this proceeding ex-parte proceedings were also taken against the defendant on 11.12.98 because defendant was also absent on the said date. Subsequently restoration application was presented by the plaintiff and on his restoration application the suit was restored on 12.4.99. Later on, on behalf of the defendant the present defendant put up an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside ex-parte proceeding which was drawn against him on 11.12.98. This application for setting aside ex-parte was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 19.12.2000. Hence, the present revision. Heard the parties and perused the record. (2). Counsel for the applicant argued that his application was dismissed on the ground that it is not accompanied with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was neither legal nor just. (3). On the contrary, counsel for the other side supported the impugned judgment. (4). After careful examination of the submission made by the rival parties I am of the view that since on 11.12.98 defendant and his counsel became absent, therefore, ex-parte proceeding was drawn against them and on the subsequent date of 18.12.98 (SIC)- when the plaintiff and his counsel became absent, his suit was dismissed. On 12.4.98 the suit was restored on the application of the plaintiff. Later on defendant when presented application under Order 9 Rue 7 CPC for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, that application could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation because such application does not carry limitation load under the law. Ex-parte proceedings can be set aside on sufficient cause. Relevancy is of the sufficient cause of absent, not of the limitation point. Ex-parte proceedings can be set aside on sufficient cause. Relevancy is of the sufficient cause of absent, not of the limitation point. Under the circumstances it would be legal, just and proper to decide the case on the merits, therefore, the present revision is accepted, impugned judgment of A.C.M. Beawar dated 19.12.2000 is set aside, ex-parte proceeding drawn on 11.12.98 is set aside on the cost of Rs.500/- which is to be paid by the applicant to the non-petitioner. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.7.2001. Pronounced in open Court.