JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 7th March, 2006, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Bayana) allowed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC, set-aside the ex-parte decree passed on 17th May, 1996. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner preferred a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of a lane/passage against the respondents, wherein the learned trial court framed the issues and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of plaintiff. It is revealed that on 9th April, 1996, the learned trial court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants-respondents as the defendants-respondents were not present in the court. The suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 17th May, 1996. Thereafter on 9th October, 1998, the respondents-defendants submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC imploring to set-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and recalling the order dated 9th April, 1996. This application was allowed by the learned trial court and the trial of the suit again commenced. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the suit was ex-parte decreed by the learned trial court on 17th May, 1996, but the respondents-defendants filed an application to set-aside the ex-parte decree on 9th October, 1998. The respondents did not assign satisfactory explanation for the delay and despite that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and by way o the impugned order while allowing the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, set-aside the ex-parte decree. The impugned order is bad in law and against the material on record, which deserves to be set-aside. 5. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. While defending the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondents stated the impugned order just and proper and prayed that it did not warrant any intervention. He further contended that the plaintiffs' evidence has been completed and the case is now fixed for recording the defendants' evidence. While defending the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondents stated the impugned order just and proper and prayed that it did not warrant any intervention. He further contended that the plaintiffs' evidence has been completed and the case is now fixed for recording the defendants' evidence. Now when more than half of the trial is complete, it shall not be in the interest of justice to allow the writ petition and set-aside the impugned order, whereby the respondents-defendants was given an opportunity to defend his case and seek justice. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is nowhere found that the learned trial court erred in allowing the application of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. At this stage when the suit is pending for recording the defendants' evidence, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and the learned counsel for the petitioners has utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the learned trial court vide order dated 7th March, 2006. 7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed accordingly. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit as the same has been pending since the year 1984.Petition dismissed. *******