JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — In this writ petition, the petitioners call in question the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by the Commis¬sioner of Endowments, Orissa in Misc. Case No.26 of 2008 arising out of O.A. No.162 of 2002 dismissing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. 2. As per the writ petition, the petitioners were inducted as tenants over the disputed premises by opp.party No.3, who was in occupation of the same premises by then. The said opp.party filed a petition under Section 25 of the O.H.R.E. Act giving rise to O.A. No.162 of 2002 before the Court of Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa for their eviction from the said premises. The present petitioners, who were opp.parties in O.A. No.162 of 2002 remained ex-parte on 7.4.2008. The matter was heard ex-parte and the ex-parte order was passed on 21.7.2008. One Niranjan Pati filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex-parte order which was registered as Misc. Case No.26 of 2008. As per the case of the petitioners therein, petitioner No.1 is a Society and Dillip Haldar was the then Secretary of the said Society. Since said Dillip Haldar did not inform petitioner No.1 about progress of the case, no step could be taken on 7.4.2008 and thereafter. Ultimately, the case was disposed of ex-parte. According to the petitioners, there are sufficient causes for their non-appearance before the Commission¬er to attend the O.A. No.162 of 2002. Neither of the parties adduces evidence. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner, Endowments held the plea that Shri Dillip Haldar did not inform petitioner No.1 about the status of the case, for which, no step could be taken was not supported by affidavit. Niranjan Pati who filed the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. was not identified by any advocate, despite office note to that effect. The Commissioner, Endowments suspect¬ed the genuineness of the power of attorney said to have executed in favour of Niranjan Pati to look after the case as page numbers 7 and 8, the last two pages, did not match with the other page. Moreover, there was no material to show that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the petitioner before the Commission¬er of Endowment. Moreover, there was no material to show that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the petitioner before the Commission¬er of Endowment. Accordingly, he rejected the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. and dismissed the Misc. Case vide order dated 26.5.2009. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2, the present Secretary of petitioner No.1-Society authorized Niranjan Pati to file Misc. Case No.26 of 2008 under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. with prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated 21.7.2008. Accordingly, he filed the Misc. Case. Since there was delay in filing the Misc. Case, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the Misc. Case. A third petition was filed for stay of operation of the ex-parte order dated 21.7.2008. Without disposing of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the stay petition, the learned Commissioner of Endowments erred in passing the impugned order. 4. Learned Commissioner of Endowments ought to have heard the limitation petition and passed orders thereon before hearing the Misc. Case. In absence of hearing and passing any such order under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it could be presumed that he allowed the limitation petition. As such, there is no ground for the petitioners to be aggrieved for not hearing of the limi¬tation petition nor passing any specific order thereon. As re¬gards stay petition, when learned Commissioner of Endowments passed orders in the main case i.e. (Misc.case No.26 of 2008) there was no need for passing order in the stay petition. 5. With regard to merit of the case, Niranjan Pati, who filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. was not identified by any Advocate, even though the defect was pointed out by the office. The genuineness of the power of attorney said to have been executed by Dillip Haldar in favour of Niranjan Pati is in fact a doubtful one, inasmuch as pages 7 and 8 viz, the last two pages thereof did not match with the other pages. Page Nos.7 and 8 of the said Power of Attorney appears to be written in some old plain papers which were also laminated. Page Nos.7 and 8 of the said Power of Attorney appears to be written in some old plain papers which were also laminated. The petition¬ers were required to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause to appear before the Commissioner of Endowments on the date fixed, but, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced to prove the same. So this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order under challenge to be interfered with in a writ petition. As such the writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.