JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. This appeal is directed against the ex-parte decree dated 5/3/2011 in a suit filed for determination of standard rent by the respondent landlord - Shri Mewara Chatriya Samaj, Jodhpur, a registered society against the present appellant - L.Rs of Sohanraj son of Meghraj. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Bhansali urged that upon remand order made by this Court on 7/12/2010 to determine the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of Old Act, namely; Rent Control Act, 1950 vide order dated 7/12/2010, fresh summons issued by the learned trial court were not properly served on the defendant tenant. He further submitted that review petition filed against the said order dated 7/12/2010 also came to be dismissed by this Court on 9/5/2011. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the order sheet entry dated 15/1/2011 in which next date was fixed by the learned trial court on 9/2/2011, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his junior assisting counsel had appeared before the trial court, however, since no 'Vakalatnama' was filed on account of communication gap, the defendant tenant could not give proper instructions, therefore, no defence in the matter could be furnished before the learned trial court and the case was at the stage of cross examination of plaintiff's affidavit. He, therefore, prayed that ex-parte decree may be set aside and the defendant tenant may be given an opportunity to complete his evidence before the learned trial court. He also submitted that the plaintiff can be compensated by payment of reasonable cost, which will be paid by the defendant tenant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, Mr. J.R.Patel relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Parimal v. Veena - AIR 2011 SC 1150 submitted that since advocate had appeared on behalf of the defendant tenant before the learned trial court and, thereafter, did not complete the defence evidence, the ex-parte decree in question does not deserve to be set aside. He, however, further submitted that the plaintiff also had to lead some evidence in the matter, therefore, if this ex-parte decree is set aside, opportunity to plaintiff should also be given. 5. He, however, further submitted that the plaintiff also had to lead some evidence in the matter, therefore, if this ex-parte decree is set aside, opportunity to plaintiff should also be given. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that since there was a controversy pending before this Court about the applicability of old Act of 1950 or new Act of 2001 about which law will apply for determination of standard rent, which was finally determined by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhag Chand v. Addl. District Judge, No. 5 Kota & Ors. - 2009 CJ (Rent Control), 1 and, thereafter, the matter was remanded by this Court while deciding first appeal No.03129/2009 (DRJ) on 7/12/2010 against which review petition was also filed, which, however, was dismissed by this Court on 9/5/2011, therefore, it appears that the contention raised before this Court at this stage that on account of communication gap the defendant tenant could not give proper instructions for completing the evidence before the trial court and the suit was decided ex-parte, appears to be bonafide and correct. 6. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the impugned ex-parte decree dated 5/3/2011 is set aside and the civil suit no. 527/2004 (19/2001) is restored to the learned court of ADJ (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur, which is now to be assigned to appropriate court by the learned District Judge for deciding the same on merits after allowing both the parties to complete their evidence within a period of two months from today. 7. The parties may appear, in the first instance, before the learned trial court on 25/8/2011. 8. The present first appeal is allowed of accordingly. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******