Judgment R.S.Garg, J. ( 1. ) To crease out the wrinkles it is necessary to enter into the controversy with a little deeper probe. The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit filed Suit No.E/64/42/2005 in the Court of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Indore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,64,790.69 with costs and interest at the rate of 13% per annum and penal interest at 3% in addition to the regular interest. It appears that an exparte award was made by the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 21.2.2006. It also appears from the records that when the property was put to auction the present petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C submitting inter alia that as he had no knowledge about pendency of the proceedings and the decision and he came to know about passing of the final order on 28.1.2008 when a proclamation was affixed on the property, the exparte award be set aside. Along with the petition an application for grant of stay of the execution proceedings was also filed. On 7.2.2008 the learned Deputy Registrar in Case No.42/2005 directed stay of further proceedings in the execution and also directed stay of execution of the exparte award. The Court directed issue of notice to the other side on the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. so also on the stay application. The respondent/decree holder challenged the order dated 7.2.2008 in Revision No. 11 of 2008 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore. By order dated 10.4.2008 the learned Joint Registrar not only vacated the interim order but even rejected the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C observing that the application was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Joint Registrar the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 77 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the said revision came to be registered as Revision Case No. 98 of 2008. The present petitioner submitted before the Board of the Revenue that the learned Joint Registrar was absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. so also he was unjustified in vacating the interim order dated 7.2.2008. The present petitioner submitted before the Board of the Revenue that the learned Joint Registrar was absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. so also he was unjustified in vacating the interim order dated 7.2.2008. The contentions and submissions were opposed by the present respondent and it was submitted that on petitioners own showing his application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was patently illegal, unjustified, misconceived and not maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal in paragraph 9 clearly observed that the revision before the Joint Registrar was against the order granting stay but however, the Tribunal observed that if the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was not maintainable interim stay could not be granted. In paragraph 10 the division Bench of the Tribunal observed that the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Joint Registrar suffered with the technical defect but however, came to dismiss the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner is before us. ( 2. ) Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner after taking us through the orders dated 7.2.2008, 10.4.2008 and the order dated 11.11.2009 (passed by the Tribunal) submitted that if the trial Court has yet not applied its mind to the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C then the appellate or revisional Court were not entitled to enter into the merit and hold that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C was misconceived and not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. His submission is that in the revision the Joint Registrar had limited scope and the Joint Registrar was only required to see whether stay of the execution should have been granted or not and under the circumstances the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar was patently illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal is also bad. He also submitted that looking to the facts and in the circumstances of the case the trial Court was absolutely justified in granting the stay against the execution. ( 3. He also submitted that looking to the facts and in the circumstances of the case the trial Court was absolutely justified in granting the stay against the execution. ( 3. ) Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submitted that from the application filed by the petitioner and his conduct as exhibited in the proceedings and as projected in the reply filed by the respondents it would clearly appear that the petitioner had the notice of the suit and to cause delay he did not appear in the proceedings. It is also submitted that in a matter like present when from the petitioners own showing it clearly appears that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.RC was misconceived the Revisional Court and the Tribunal were justified in dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. irrespective of the fact that the Deputy Registrar had not considered the merits of the matter. ( 4. ) We have heard the parties at length. ( 5. ) Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C provides that in any case in which a decree is passed exparte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside, and if he satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served or that (M.P.) he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, or shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. ( 6. ) Rule 13 of Order 9 in its application has been amended in State of M.P and the existing clause has been renumbered as sub rule (1) and the words "there was sufficient cause for his failure to appear" have been substituted for the words "he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing". Sub Rule (2) has been added in the following terms "the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1908 shall apply to the applications under sub rule (1)" Certain proviso and explanation have been appended to Rule 13 but, as we are not concerned with the said proviso and the explanation we are not referring to the same. ( 7. ( 7. ) In a case where the defendant comes to the Court and seeks setting aside of an exparte decree he has to satisfy the Court. After recording evidence and hearing the parties the Court has to pass final orders on the application filed under rule 13 of Order 9 C.P.C. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure when an application under rule 13 is rejected an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be maintainable but, if the application is allowed then the other side would have no right to an appeal but the matter can be challenged under Section 115 C.P.C or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8. ) When an application under Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed then the Court entertaining such application is always entitled to exercise all its inherent powers and while exercising such powers the Court may pass such orders which are required to be passed in the matter to avoid abuse of the process of law. In a given case if an application for grant of stay is filed then the Court dealing with the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. would be entitled to stay the effect and execution of the decree/award. ( 9. ) It shall be within the jurisdiction of the said Court to grant or not to grant stay but while deciding the application filed under Rule 13 Order 9 C.P.C the Court has to record a positive finding that there exist a sufficient cause or there was no sufficient cause. If the Court dealing with the application records that there was a sufficient cause then the Court would hold so and set aside the order/ award and if the Court holds that there was no sufficient cause it shall reject the application. ( 10. ) In the present matter it has to be seen from the records and it is also not in dispute that along wrth the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C an application for grant of stay was also filed. On 7.2.2008 the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies directed issue of the notice of the main petition so also of the said application and in the meanwhile directed stay of execution of the award passed earlier. On 7.2.2008 the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies directed issue of the notice of the main petition so also of the said application and in the meanwhile directed stay of execution of the award passed earlier. Undisputedly the defendants did not put their appearance before the Deputy Registrar but straightway filed a revision challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 7.2.2008. We are entering into the details of the fact because learned counsel for the respondent have referred to the conduct of the petitioner. Undisputedly in absence of a reply to or trial of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C the same could not have been rejected by the trial Court unless the Court was of the opinion that it was misconceived. In the present matter the trial Court did find some substance in the application, therefore, directed issue of notice to the other side. In the revision filed by the present respondent the order dated 7.2.2008 only was challenged and not the maintainability of the petition filed under the Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. It is to be seen from the order passed by the Joint Registrar that the revision was filed against the order dated 7.2.2008. ( 11. ) It would be trite to say that a Court does not assume jurisdiction in the air or on its own assumptions or presumptions or out of fanciful reasons but it assumes jurisdiction on the strength of the power conferred on it by the statute. In the present matter the court derived its power under the provisions which permitted the Court to hear the revision petition. When a revision petition or appeal is entertained for its hearing then the scope of jurisdiction and limit of the Court are confined to consider correctness of the order under challenge. A person would not be entitled to request the revisional Court to go beyond its jurisdiction and pass an order which was yet not taken up by the trial Court. In the present matter undisputedly the Trial Court had not passed any order on the application filed under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. but simply issued notice of the same. If that be so the limits of the jurisdiction of the revisional Court were to examine the correctness, validity and propriety of the order which was challenged before it and not beyond that. If that be so the limits of the jurisdiction of the revisional Court were to examine the correctness, validity and propriety of the order which was challenged before it and not beyond that. In the present matter the learned Joint Registrar traveled beyond its jurisdiction in holding that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. was misconceived and not maintainable. We are sorry to observe that learned Joint Registrar did not understand the extent of its jurisdiction but acted in a fanciful manner. We are required to tell him that any authority/Court/Tribunal howsoever high he is cannot travel beyond its jurisdiction and if it travels beyond its jurisdiction the order would have no foundation to stand upon. ( 12. ) The unfortunate part is that despite holding that the scope of revision was limited and the Joint Registrar was not justified in entering into the maintainability of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C and despite further holding that the order dated 10.4.2008 suffered with technical defects the Tribunal erred in maintaining it. When an order is patently without jurisdiction and suffers with latent defects then the higher Court is required to strike on the illegality with the sword of justice. ( 13. ) In the present matter the learned Tribunal in our considered opinion, failed in exercising its jurisdiction despite holding that the trial Court did not pass any order on application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C and the Joint Registrar was also unjustified in taking up the issue of maintainability of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. ( 14. ) It was contended by Shri Shrivastava that if the .merits of the matter are seen it would clearly appear that the present petitioner had taken part in the proceedings and, thereafter walked away which compelled the Deputy Registrar to make an exparte award. He also referred to certain orders and certain proclamation. We repeatedly requested the learned counsel to tell us the scope of revision while challenging a particular order, the learned counsel continuously tried to persuade us that the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be bad because the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was misconceived. ( 15. ) We have already observed that the present respondent simply challenged the order dated 7.2.2008. ( 15. ) We have already observed that the present respondent simply challenged the order dated 7.2.2008. The said order was in relation to grant of exparte ad interim stay. The order dated 7.2.2008 did not deal with the merits of the application for setting aside the exparte decree. If that was so the revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised in relation to grant of stay and not beyond that. ( 16. ) The order passed by the learned Joint Registrar confirmed by the Tribunal dismissing the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is absolutely illegal, it deserves to and is accordingly set aside. ( 17. ) In so far as merits of the order dated 7/2/2008 are concerned, we are of the opinion that at this stage the revisional Court was not required to interfere in the matter especially when the present respondent did not enter into appearance nor filed is reply to the main petition or reply to the said application. The orders passed by the Joint Registrar on 10/4/2008 and the order dated 11/11/2009 passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order granting stay are also quashed. The order dated 7/2/2008 passed by the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Indore in Case No.42/2005 is restored however, with liberty in favour of the respondent to file their reply with a request to the Court to pass orders either for confirmation or vacation of the interim order. ( 18. ) The petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs,10,000.00 to be paid by the respondents before the learned Deputy Registrar. Payment of the cost shall be a condition precedent for permission to the respondent to take part in the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar. Petition allowed.