This revision petition is directed against order dated 13-5-2004 passed by the Munsiff, Jammu whereby application of the non- applicant/ defendant for setting aside exparte proceedings has been allowed subject to payment of costs. It is admitted case of the parties that the defendants/ non-applicants after causing appearance and filing written statement absented from the proceedings. Accordingly, exparte proceedings were initiated against the defendants on 2-11-2002. Plaintiff was asked to lead evidence which was led by him and the matter was finally heard on 3-10-2003 as is evident from the copy of interim order produced by the petitioner before the Court. Only the judgment was to be pronounced. It is at this stage that on 16-10-2003 when the judgment was to be announced, an application came to be filed for setting aside the exparte proceedings. After inviting objections, the trial Court passed the impugned order setting aside the exparte proceedings. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court has committed glaring illegality in allowing the application for setting aside the exparte proceedings at the stage of pronouncing the judgment. Under Order 9 Rule 6 CPC if the defendant absents from the proceedings after appearing, the Court trying a suit can proceed exparte against him. In terms of Order 9 Rule 7 such of the defendant against whom exparte proceedings are initiated has a right to approach the Court for setting aside exparte proceedings at or before the adjourned date of hearing and if he shows good and sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance, the Court may direct setting aside of the exparte proceedings on such terms as may be directed by the court which shall include payment of costs. Admittedly, the exparte proceedings being initiated on 2-11-2002 the case came to be adjourned a number of times and it is almost after two years that the case was heard for pronouncing the final judgment on 3-10-2003 and the date for pronouncing the judgment was fixed for 16-10-2003, when this application came to be filed. There was no date for hearing when this application came to be filed. There was no date for hearing when this application came to be filed. The issue has been considered by the Apex Court in case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "Adverting to the facts of the present appeal, this would primarily turn upon the proper construction of the terms of O. 9 R 7. The opening words of that rule are, as already seen, `Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit exparte. Now, what do these words mean? Obviously they assume that there is to be a hearing on the date to which the suit stands adjourned,. If the entirety of the hearing of the suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce the judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under O XX R 1, there is clearly an adjournment of `the hearing of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the case." In view of the ratio of the afore-said judgment and keeping in view the provisions of Order 9 R 7 CPC the only remedy available to the defendant against whom exparte proceedings had been initiated and case reserved for final judgment is to seek setting aside of the exparte decree in the event any dercree is passed by invoking the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The provisions of O.9 R 7 cannot be invoked in such a situation where the case is reserved for judgment. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from illegality and is not sustainable in law. Same is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for pronouncing the judgment on the basis of the material/ evidence already recorded. The non-applicant is however, at liberty to seek appropriate remedy including under Order 9 R 13 CPC in the event any decree is passed against the non-applicant. Petitioner to appear before the trial Court on 24-5-2005 where the date is already fixed.