U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 28. 11. 1980. 2. 11. 1985 and 23. 11. 1988 passed by the j. S. C. C. and Revlslonal Court. ( 2 ) THE respondent Nos. 3 to 12 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 33 of 1980 against Ram Chander father of the petitioners for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default in payment of rent. The above suit was decreed ex parte on 28. 11. 1980, as the defendant of the suit was served, but did not appear to contest. ( 3 ) THE petitioners moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13. C. P. C. for setting aside the above ex parte decree on the ground that summons of the case was not served on their father, nor he refused to take any summons. They came to know about the decree only on 7. 12. 1981 through one Ram Autar. The respondents contested the above application on various grounds. The above application of the petitioners was. however, rejected on 6. 2. 1983. The petitioners filed a revision against the said order. The revisional court allowed the application and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to decide the matter afresh. After remand, petitioners examined (P. W. 1) and (P. W. 2) before the Court and respondents examined (D. W. 1) and parties also filed documentary evidence. The trial court again dismissed the above application on 2. 11. 1985 holding that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitioners filed S. C. C. Revision No. 112 of 1985. The revisional court dismissed the revision by impugned order dated 21. 3. 1988. The said order of revisional court has been challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record. ( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Ram Chander. the father of petitioners against whom suit was originally filed had died on 17. 3. 1979. An ex parte decree was passed on 28. 11. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record. ( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Ram Chander. the father of petitioners against whom suit was originally filed had died on 17. 3. 1979. An ex parte decree was passed on 28. 11. 1980 treating sufficient service on him, therefore, the decree was illegal as there was no question of service on Ram Chander, as the suit itself was filed on 23. 5. 1980 after his death. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners have wrongly alleged that their father died on 17. 3. 1979 and In fact he died on 19. 11. 1981. This point was raised before the trial court as well as revlslonal court and both the courts have rejected above plea of the petitioners that their father died on 17. 3:1979, by giving sound reasoning for arriving on the above findings. ( 6 ) I have also examined the above findings. In the application under Order IX, Rule 13. C. P. C. moved by the petitioners on 23. 12. 1981. (Annexure-1 to the present writ petition), they had nowhere mentioned that their father died on 17. 3. 1979. They simply mentioned in paragraph 8 of the said application that their father had died and the shop In question was only source of their livelihood. No date or even probable period of death of their father was given in the said application. ( 7 ) EX parte decree by the trial court, was put in execution and execution case No. 13 of 1981 was filed by the respondents against Ram Chander. An application was moved on behalf of Smt. Maya Devi in said execution case on 19. 2. 1982 for substitution of legal representatives of Ram chander. in which she mentioned that Ram Chander died on 19. 1. 1. 1981. No objection was raised against said application regarding date of death of Ram Chander by the petitioners. who were legal representatives of said Ram Chander and application was allowed. If the father of the petitioners would have died on 17. 3. 1979. the above application for substitution was apparently barred by time and this objection must have been taken by the petitioners. Taking no objection by them to that effect goes against them. who were legal representatives of said Ram Chander and application was allowed. If the father of the petitioners would have died on 17. 3. 1979. the above application for substitution was apparently barred by time and this objection must have been taken by the petitioners. Taking no objection by them to that effect goes against them. ( 8 ) RELIANCE was placed on the extract of death register maintained by Nagar Palika. The revisional court has also considered the above document and found that the dale of death of Ram chander as 17. 3. 1979 shown in the Nagar Palika Register was made on 23. 3. 1983 after more than 4 years of the alleged date of his death. It was also found that this certificate was not produced in the case prior to remand and no satisfactory explanation for delay in getting registration of death of Ram Chander was shown before the courts below. The above document was thus got prepared during pendency of case. Therefore, the courts below rightly did not place any reliance on the above extract, which appeared fabricated. ( 9 ) BOTH the courts below have also relied on reply of notice given on behalf of Ram Chander by his counsel on 13. 4. 1979 and rightly concluded that above reply showed that Ram Chander was alive on the date of reply, i. e. , 13. 4. 1979. as the advocate Sri Dhlrendra Kumar, who had given reply on behalf of Ram Chander was not examined on behalf of the petitioners before the trial court to show that Ram Chander had not Instructed him to send above reply. ( 10 ) IT was further contended that Court should be liberal in allowing the application under Order ix. Rule 13. C. P. C. , as the intention of law is to decide the case on merit and not to shut the door for hearing. In the instant case, the petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte decree. The finding of the trial court as well as revisional court are based on evidence on record and there appears no ground to interfere with the above finding in this writ petition in the exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) THE writ petition having no force and it is, accordingly. .