AJOY NATH RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an ap-peal from an order refusing to set aside the grant of Letters of Administration with copy (of) Will annexed made in favour of one Smt. Bagala Chakraborty on 24-5-1995. ( 2 ) THE deceased, her husband, Sudhir kumar Chakraborty had made a Registered will under which his widow was to get the entirety of his property. After this clause of absolute grant, there are other clauses in derogation, seeking to give the other parties, the property left by the deceased. in case those are left disposed of by Bagala during her lifetime. ( 3 ) MR. Banerjees clients, the appellants, pressed their application for setting aside of the ex parte grant particularly on the ground that their lawyer, Mahato could not attend on 24-5-1995 because of his daughters marriage. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge in the Court below correctly analysing the evidence before him, has opined that the marriage of the daughter took place on 21-6-1996 which was a month later and also that Mahato, who came to the box did not specifically support the case that he could not attend because of his daughters marriage. ( 5 ) THE records show that no affidavit in support of the Caveat was filed by Mr. Benerjees clients although they got time for it, the last date having expired on 27-1-95 which date was fixed on 6-12-1994. ( 6 ) ALSO, the hearing of the grant of Letters case started on 17-4-1995 when evidence was taken. Further evidence was taken on 19-4-95 and it was only the judgment which was passed on 24-5-1995. ( 7 ) THE Judge has found that the appellants were absent on all previous dates, viz. 27-1-, 2-3 -. 17-4-, and 19-4-95 also. ( 8 ) THE case on merits, accordingly, is very weak, if not non-existent for the appellants. Mr, Banerjee also raised two technical points. First he relied on the case of G. P. Srivastava, reported at (2000) 2 JT (SC)569 : AIR 2000 SC 1221 and said, on this authority, when without determining which cause is sufficient, the Court will have to focus its attention on the date of non-appearance; other earlier dates did not have a bearing on the matter. ( 9 ) IN our case, however, the earlier dates were not isolated. ( 9 ) IN our case, however, the earlier dates were not isolated. The hearings in fact took place ex parte on at least two dates earlier. As such, the reliance placed by the Lower court on continued non-appearance by the appellants/caveators is not an immaterial or an extraneous consideration. ( 10 ) MR. Banerjee also submitted that before finishing off a case ex parte finally, it is incumbent upon the Court to fix a date for ex parte hearing. According to him, after such fixation only the Court has power to pass an ex parte final order. ( 11 ) HE relied in this regard under Order 17, Rules 2 and 3 which are quoted below :"2. Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed. Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. {explanation. Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the court may, in its discretion proceed with the case as if such party were present.)"3. Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witness, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, (the Court may, notwithstanding such default. a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; orb} if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2.) ( 12 ) IT is better to read Rule 3 first. ( 13 ) IN conjunction with the above rules, he placed before us Order 9, Rule 6 (1) (a)and Order 9, Rule 7 of the C. P. Code. 6. Procedure when only plaintiff appears. (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then (a) when summons duly served. ( 13 ) IN conjunction with the above rules, he placed before us Order 9, Rule 6 (1) (a)and Order 9, Rule 7 of the C. P. Code. 6. Procedure when only plaintiff appears. (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then (a) when summons duly served. If it is not proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte; 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 before 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 date fixed for his appearance. ( 14 ) HIS arguments were based on the above rules. ( 15 ) WE do not find from the above any compulsion on the Court to fix a separate date for ex parte hearing, in case the defendant happens to be absent without cause on the date already fixed for hearing of the suit. No doubt, the Court can give another chance to the defendant and put the suit up specifically for an ex parte hearing, when order 9 Rule 7 will come into operation. But this is at the discretion of the Court and not a matter of compulsion. As such, the Court here made no error in passing the ex parte judgment on the date fixed for passing of it, without putting it up to a further date for delivery of ex parte judgment. ( 16 ) THE above Supreme Court case cited by Mr. Banerjee is also an authority for the proposition that in matters of setting aside an ex parte decree, the first Court has a wide discretion. When the appeal Court sits in appeal over discretionary orders, it does not interfere with the trial Courts judgments passed in exercise of such discretion, unlessit can be shown as vitiated by some facts which is clear and important. ( 17 ) WE cannot find any such vitiating factor here. ( 18 ) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. ( 17 ) WE cannot find any such vitiating factor here. ( 18 ) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. ( 19 ) I agree. Appeal dismissed.