JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defend- ant No. 3) against the order dated 17-5-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rawatsar District Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No. 358/96 by which he rejected the application filed by the defendant No. 3 under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27-4-1998. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- The respondent No. 1-plaintiff-Dhanna Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction initially against the State of Rajasthan and Tehsildar (defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively) and later on, on the application of the defendant No. 3 filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, the defendant No. 3 was also made party to the suit vide order dated 15-9-1997. On 27-4-1998, defendant No. 3 was not present in the Court and, therefore, Court ordered that suit be heard ex parte against all the defendants and fixed the next date of hearing i'.e. 25-5-1998 for recording ex parte evidence of the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff. 25-5-1998 was declared Holiday and therefore, the file was put up in the Court on 26-5-1998 and on 26-5-1998, the Court fixed another date i.e. 14-7-1998 for recording ex parte evidence of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. On 14-7-1998, an application under Order 9, Rule 7 was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 3 with the prayer that the ex parte order dated 27-4-1998 be set aside and defendant No. 3 be permitted to file written statement and reasons for non-appearance on the date fixed i.e. on 25/ 26-5-1998 were given in that application. On 14-7-1998, an application under Order 9, Rule 7 was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 3 with the prayer that the ex parte order dated 27-4-1998 be set aside and defendant No. 3 be permitted to file written statement and reasons for non-appearance on the date fixed i.e. on 25/ 26-5-1998 were given in that application. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17- 5-1999 rejected the application of the petitioner- defendant No. 3 filed under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC holding inter alia : "That the order directing that the suit would be heard ex parte was passed on 27-4-1998 and the next date which was fixed was 25/26-5-1998 and since the application for setting-aside the ex parte order dated 27-4-1998 was not filed before 25/26-5-1998 and the same has been filed on 14-7-1998, therefore, the application, according to the learned trial Court, was barred by time and accordingly, the same was rejected by the learned trial Court." Aggrieved from the said order dated 17-5- 1999 passed by the learned trial Court, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 3. 3. Notices of this revision petition were is- sued to the respondents and despite service of notice on the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, he has not appeared. 4. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 3 has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and has acted with material irregularity and illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner-defendant No. 3 on the ground that it was not filed timely, whereas it was specifically stated in the application that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 27- 4-1998 for the first time on 10th July, 1998. It is, therefore, argued on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No. 3 that the limitation is to be counted from the date of knowledge and the application filed by the petitioner defendant No. 3 cannot be treated as time barred. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 17-5-1999 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 3 on 14-7-1998 under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27-4- 1998, be set aside. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 3 and gone through the record of the case. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 3 and gone through the record of the case. 6. In my considered opinion, the view taken by the learned trial Court that the application for setting aside the ex parte order should have been filed on or before the next date of hearing, is erroneous one. 7. For convenience, Rule 7 of Order 9, CPC is quoted here : "R. 7 Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance. Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte and the defendant, at or be- fore 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." 8. The underlying principle of this Rule is that until the suit is actually called and so long as an ex parte decree is not passed, the defendant is entitled to come in and defend the suit. 9. The position of law in this respect is that if the defendant wants to set aside the order placing him ex parte and he relegated to the stage at which the suit was when he absented himself, then he has to assign good cause for his previous absence. The reason given is that the rule is not intended to be penal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 993 at page 1002) has observed that if he does appear on the date to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, he cannot be stopped from participating in the proceedings from that stage simply because he did not appear on the first or some other hearing and did not show good cause for the non-appearance. 10. From the above, it has become crystal clear that if good cause has been shown by the defendant for non-appearance on the previous dates of hearing, he cannot be stopped from participating in the later proceedings. Thus, it can be said that so long as an ex parte decree is not passed, the defendant is entitled to come in and defend the suit, as stated above. 11. Thus, it can be said that so long as an ex parte decree is not passed, the defendant is entitled to come in and defend the suit, as stated above. 11. When this being the position, the view taken by the learned trial Court that the application of the petitioner defendant No. 3 was barred by time is erroneous one and cannot be sustained.For the reasons stated above, this revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 3 is allowed and the impugned order dated 17-5- 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rawatsar District Hanumangarh is set aside and the application of the petitioner-defendant No. 3 dated 14-7-1998 filed under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC is alloyed on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- (Rs. I five hundred only) to be payable to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Dhanna Ram. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court o 16th April, 2001.Revision allowed. *******