ORDER Heard. 2. This is an application by the plaintiff against an order dated 23.8.2005 passed by Sub Judge 1st, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 22/2002 passed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC recalling the ex parte judgment and decree. The said order was passed on an application by the defendant. The Court before passing the impugned order gave full liberty to adduce evidences. In sub-stance the case of the defendant-opposite party was that he was wrongly informed about the date of the case in between which the proceedings were concluded. Apparently this may appear to be slightly unnatural that for one date the proceedings are concluded but a reference to the ordersheet would show that it is virtually for one date's absence the proceeding seems to be concluded. The petitioner has enclosed the ordersheet. A reference to the ordersheet shows that on 27.9.2001 the trial court noted that as summons had been issued and not returned unserved within thirty days it will be deemed to be served, had fixed 9.10.2001 as the next date. Curiously on the very next date i.e. 9.10.2001 which was the first date after deemed service of summons the proceedings were ordered to be ex-parte. Thereafter the court was busy. On 29.1.2002 two defendants appeared and filed application for recall of the ex-parte order. The matter was pending as the presiding officer of the court was transferred. On 14.6.2002 the new presiding officer ordered that the application for recall of ex-parte order would be heard on 3.7.2002. On 16.8.2002 it is noted that none appeared for defendants and as such it was directed that defendants be informed that their application would be heard on 21.8.2002. On 21.8.2002 on behalf of the defendants adjournment was sought and the case was adjourned to 29.8.2002. 3. Here it is a case of opposite party-defendant that though in fact, the case was adjourned to 29.8.2002, he was informed by his Advocate/Advocate Clerk that the case stood adjourned to 13.9.2002 and accordingly on 29.8.2002 he did not appear in the case as per the order-sheet itself. On 13.9.2002 on his appearance he found that from 29.8.2002 suddenly case proceeded on day to day basis after rejecting his application for recall of ex-parte and then day to day to examine witnesses and reserved for orders within a period of less than six days. On 13.9.2002 on his appearance he found that from 29.8.2002 suddenly case proceeded on day to day basis after rejecting his application for recall of ex-parte and then day to day to examine witnesses and reserved for orders within a period of less than six days. As noted above, defendant-opposite party's application and appearance on 13.9.2002 notwithstanding that on 18.9.2002 the judgment was delivered. This was a suit for damage for malicious prosecution and the court by ex-parte judgment dated 18.9.2002 awarded damage to the extent of Rs. 1,35,000/- in favour of the plaintiff in the manner as aforesaid. It is against the said judgment the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was filed. The trial court examined the witnesses and has allowed the claim. This has brought the plaintiff to this court. It is submitted that from the order-sheet aforesaid it would be clear that the defendant had been negligent in conducting the litigation and as such no order under Order IX. Rule 13 CPC ought to have been passed. It is then submitted that the trial court had failed to consider the material evidences and as such the impugned order is vitiated. 4. Having heard the parties and examined the order impugned I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 5. So far as the challenge of defendant on the ground of defendant being negligent is concerned, Suffice it to say, the stand of the defendant was that the date was wrongly informed. One would think if one date was missed certainly he would ascertain to appear in the proceeding on another date but a reference the order-sheet would show that missing out of one date give opportunity to the party to conclude the proceeding in between itself and the court and then proceed hurriedly to deliver the judgment. I say no more. 6. So far as consideration of evidence is concerned, that will not be jurisdictional error, the court is not to reproduce the entire evidence to see that everything has been considered. 7. Having gone through the impugned order I find that the court has elaborately discussed the evidences led and has accepted the plea of the defendant that he had been wrongly informed about the date. 8. In that view of the matter I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and this civil revision application is dismissed.