ORDER Alok Aradhe, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by Plaintiff against the order dated 30-10- 2009 passed by Trial Court by which application preferred by non- applicant No. 1/Defendant No. 20 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and ex parte decree passed in favour of applicant/Plaintiff has been set aside. 2. Facts, briefly stated, leading to filing of the instant revision are that applicant/Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration, partition and possession sometime in the year 1993 which was registered as Civil Suit No. 136-A/1993. During pendency of the civil suit, Defendant No. 20 purchased part of the suit property from Defendant No. 1. Accordingly, Trial Court in the year 1999 directed the applicant/Plaintiff to implead non-applicant No. 1 as Defendant in the civil suit. The application for impleadment of Defendant No. 20 was allowed vide order dated 4-5-1999 and Plaintiff was directed to pay the process fee by ordinary post as well as by registered post with acknowledgment due. Summons were issued to Defendant No. 20 on 17-5-1999 for his appearance before Trial Court on 25-6-1999. However, on 25-6-1999 the Presiding Officer was on leave and in the absence of Presiding Officer, the proceedings in the suit were adjourned to 1-7-1999. On 1-7-1999, the Presiding Officer proceeded ex parte against Defendant No. 20 and eventually an ex parte decree was passed 29-9- 2006 in favour of the applicant/Plaintiff. Trial Court on 10-11- 2006 sent copies of the ex parte judgment and decree to the Collector, Katni for execution of the decree. The Collector made over the proceedings to Tehsildar who thereupon issued notices to Defendants in the suit for their appearance on 11-12- 2006. The notice of the proceeding before Tehsildar was served on Defendant No. 20 on 4-12-2006. It is alleged that Defendant No. 20 entered appearance through his Counsel by executing Vakalatnama and also filed an application for stay. 3. Non-applicant No. 1 filed an application on 6-4-2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree which was registered as MJC No. 6/2007. By order dated 26-2-2008 Trial Court dismissed the application preferred by non-applicant No. 1 against which he preferred an appeal forming subject matter of M.A. No. 7/2008. Non-applicant No. 1 filed an application on 6-4-2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree which was registered as MJC No. 6/2007. By order dated 26-2-2008 Trial Court dismissed the application preferred by non-applicant No. 1 against which he preferred an appeal forming subject matter of M.A. No. 7/2008. The appeal preferred by non-applicant No. 1 was allowed by Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 8-8-2008. The applicant/Plaintiff challenged the validity of order dated 8-8-2008 which was registered as C.R. No. 351/2008. However, on 30-8-2009, the applicant withdrew the revision preferred by him. 4. In the proceedings before Trial Court on 31-8-2009, non-applicant No. 1 filed an application seeking condonation of delay in which inter alia, it was averred that non- applicant learnt about ex parte decree for the first time on 26-1-2007. Thereupon he immediately filed an application for obtaining certified copy on 27-1-2007 and received the same on 2- 4-2007. It was further stated that delay between 29-9-2006 to 21- 6-2007 has been caused only because non-applicant No. 1 was not aware about the decree passed against him. 5. Applicant filed reply to the aforesaid application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in which inter alia, it was contended that non-applicant No. 1 had the knowledge of the decree at least from 11-12-2006 and on 6-4-2007 application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed without any application for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause has been pleaded seeking condonation of delay. Summons of the suit were duly served on non-applicant No. 1 as has been found by Trial Court in Paragraph 10 of its order. The application, therefore, is liable to be rejected. 6. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 30-10- 2009 allowed the application preferred by non-applicant No. 1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was found that summons were served on 17-5-1999. However, on 1-4-1999 Plaintiff filed an application for amending the plaint extensively. The said application was allowed Trial Court. However, no notice of the amended plaint was issued to Defendants. Trial Court further held that on 25-6-1999 the Presiding Officer was on leave which was a formal date. Therefore, fresh summons ought to have been issued. Trial Court further held that non-applicant No. 1 derived knowledge of the ex parte decree on 26-1-2007. However, no notice of the amended plaint was issued to Defendants. Trial Court further held that on 25-6-1999 the Presiding Officer was on leave which was a formal date. Therefore, fresh summons ought to have been issued. Trial Court further held that non-applicant No. 1 derived knowledge of the ex parte decree on 26-1-2007. Accordingly, the ex parte decree was set aside and non-applicant No. 1 was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to Plaintiff. 7. I have heard Shri S.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for application and Smt. Archana Nagariya, learned Counsel for non- applicant No. 1. 8. Learned Counsel for applicant submitted that after ex parte decree and judgment were passed by Trial Court, Tehsildar fixed the proceeding for partition and issued notice on 28-11-2006 for appearance of all the Defendants including the non-applicant No. 1 on 11-12-2006. Aforesaid notice was received by non-applicant No. 1 on 4-12-2006. However, non-applicant No. 1 did not appear before Tehsildar on 11-12-2006 and appeared on 31- 8-2007 and filed Vakalatnama and took part in the proceeding before Tehsildar. He also filed an application for stay before Tehsildar. Thus, non-applicant No. 1 had knowledge about ex parte decree from 11-12-2006. He filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree without any application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, on 31-8-2009, an application for condonation of delay was filed in which no sufficient cause was shown. On the other hand, incorrect plea was taken with regard to knowledge of ex parte judgment and decree. In Paragraph 10 of the order passed by Trial Court, a finding has been recorded that summons were duly served on non-applicant No. 1. It has further been submitted that non-applicant No. 1 knew about the date of appearance and he had sufficient time to appear. It has further been contended that if summons were duly served, the Defendant No. 20 has to appear even if the Presiding Officer was on leave. No sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of non-applicant No. 1. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for applicant has placed reliance in Om Prakash Kulshreshtha v. M.P. Commercial Automobiles 2000 (1) WN 97, Rudramani Padhan and Ors. v. State of Orissa AIR 1981 Ori 202 , Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India 2008 (5) M.P.H.T. 2 , Shri Sharda Prabandhak Samiti, Maihar and Anr. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for applicant has placed reliance in Om Prakash Kulshreshtha v. M.P. Commercial Automobiles 2000 (1) WN 97, Rudramani Padhan and Ors. v. State of Orissa AIR 1981 Ori 202 , Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India 2008 (5) M.P.H.T. 2 , Shri Sharda Prabandhak Samiti, Maihar and Anr. v. Indrasen Jali 2004 (4) MPLJ 537 and (2000) 2 WN 116. 9. On the other hand Smt. Archana Nagariya, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 while opposing the submissions made by learned Counsel for applicant submitted that on 29-4-1993 the suit was initially filed against nine Defendants. On 1-4-1999, an application was filed for impleadment of several Defendants. Non-applicant No. 1 was not served with the notice of application for impleadment and without issuing notice to non-applicant No. 1 he was impleaded as Defendant No. 20 in the suit. Though, Trial Court vide order dated 4-9-1999 directed the notice to be issued through ordinary post as well as by registered post with acknowledgment due, yet process fee was not paid by registered post. It was further argued that signature of Defendant No. 20 on notice is disputed. The pliant was extensively amended by Plaintiff and, therefore, the notice of amended plaint ought to have been issued to the non-applicant No. 1. It has further been submitted that application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed within limitation as the same was made within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of knowledge. In support of her submissions she has placed reliance on decisions in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 377 , Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. R.K. Maheshwari 2004 (4) M.P.H.T. 53 : 1991 MPLJ 329 , Agro Feb v. Bank of India 2005 (5) M.P.H.T. 23 . 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for parties. Admittedly, non-applicant No. 1 was served with summons to appear on 25-6-1999, i.e., the date on which Presiding Officer was on leave. In the absence of Presiding Officer, the proceedings were adjourned to 1-7-1999. On 1-7-1999, non-applicant was proceeded ex parte. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for parties. Admittedly, non-applicant No. 1 was served with summons to appear on 25-6-1999, i.e., the date on which Presiding Officer was on leave. In the absence of Presiding Officer, the proceedings were adjourned to 1-7-1999. On 1-7-1999, non-applicant was proceeded ex parte. This Court has consistently taken a view that where the Presiding Officer is on leave and next date of hearing is fixed, the date so fixed is formal date and on that day no ex parte proceeding can be taken. [See : Shyamrao and Anr. v. Motilal 1977 MPWN 339, Sushila Dai v. Ram Nihore Jagatdhari Prasad Patel 1991 MPLJ 329 and (1993) 1 MPWN 7 , Raghurajsingh v. Kalyanprasad 1964 JLJ SN 78, Kranti Kumar Jha v. Dr. J.B. Shrivastava 1978 (1) MPWN 443, Mohanlal Brijlal v. Manga 1986 CCLJ 39. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Laxmibai (Smt.) v. Keshrimal Jain 1994 JLJ 747 . However, subsequently learned Single Judge in Om Prakash Kulshreshtha (supra), took a contrary view that Defendant has to appear even if Presiding Officer is on leave. In the light of decision rendered by Special Bench of this Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2003 (1) MPLJ 513 , where conflicting views have been expressed by different decisions then earlier decisions are binding on this Court. In view of the fact that decision in Laxmibai (Smt.) (supra), is rendered by Division Bench, the same is binding. For aforementioned reasons, since on 25-6-1999, Presiding Officer was on leave therefore, next date, i.e., 1-7-1999 was a formal date and on that day no ex parte proceedings could be taken against non-applicant No. 1. Fresh summons ought to have been issued to non-applicant No. 1. Therefore, order dated 1-7-1999 proceeding ex parte against non-applicant No. 1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. Apart from this on 24-9-2001 pursuant to the application for amendment made by Plaintiff vide order dated 6-3-2002 Trial Court permitted the Plaintiff to amend the plaint extensively. In Mahesh Singh and Ors. v. Sewaram and Ors. 2000 (1) MPLJ 407, this Court has held that even when Defendant is absent, no amendment should be allowed without notice to him. Apart from this on 24-9-2001 pursuant to the application for amendment made by Plaintiff vide order dated 6-3-2002 Trial Court permitted the Plaintiff to amend the plaint extensively. In Mahesh Singh and Ors. v. Sewaram and Ors. 2000 (1) MPLJ 407, this Court has held that even when Defendant is absent, no amendment should be allowed without notice to him. Admittedly, in the instant case notice of application for amendment was not issued to non-applicant No. 1. 12. The matter of condonation of delay is in the discretion of the Court. Trial Court after taking into account the material available on record has recorded a finding that non-applicant No. 1 derived the knowledge of ex parte decree on 21-6-2007. Thereafter he had filed an application for obtaining certified copy of the order and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed. It is well settled in law that in the matter of condonation of delay liberal approach has to be adopted by Court. [See : State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94 ] 13. It has been held by Supreme Court that expression "sufficient cause" is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It is equally well settled that once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the Superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. [See : T.V. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 ] 14. From perusal of the reasons assigned by Trial Court in its order for condonation of delay, this Court is unable to hold that discretion to condone the delay has either been exercised on wholly untenable grounds or is arbitrary or perverse. 15. Moreover, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the cases only where Trial Court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in law. 15. Moreover, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the cases only where Trial Court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in law. When the order passed by the Trial Court is in the interest of justice, the High Court can refuse to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the order suffers from material irregularity or illegality. The interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary. The order passed by the Trial Court even if it suffers from some irregularity, may not be interfered with in revision unless grave injustice or hardship would result from failure to do so. [See : Ramswaroop Raghuwardayal and Ors. v. Mataprasad Prabhudayal AIR 1952 MB and Ranjan Sharma v. Rambabu Vaishya and Ors. 2003 (1) MPLJ 310 16. In view of preceding analysis, no case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made out. However, since, the proceeding was initiated by the applicant in the year 1993 and the aforesaid decree has been set aside at the instance of non-applicant No. 1, the instant revision, while maintaining the order passed by Trial Court, is disposed of with the following directions: (i) Non-applicant No. 1 shall deposit further amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) before Trial Court by way of costs within a period of one month from the dale of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. (ii) Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously with an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.