Prakash Krishna, J.;- By the impugned orders, the courts below have rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Original Suit No. 26 of 1992 was instituted by the respondents herein against the petitioners. Admittedly, the summon was served on the defendant/petitioners who filed the written statement. Subsequently, on 16.9.1996, the suit was dismissed due to absence of the parties. Thereafter an application to restore the suit was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The suit was ultimately decreed ex parte. An application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on the ground that after the restoration of the suit to its original number, no summon was served on the defendant/petitioners. The said plea has not believed by the two courts below on the findings that the defendants after the restoration of the suit to its original number appeared on various dates and participated in the proceedings. Not only that the issues were settled in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. Challenging the aforesaid approach of the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the Order 9 Rule 6 of CPC, unless and until summons is served on the defendants, ex parte decree be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, I do not find any merit in the said argument. It has been found as a fact that the defendant-petitioners appeared and was served with the summons of the suit and they did file the written statement. The suit was dismissed in default of the parties and was restored after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. After restoration, the defendants appeared on few dates and thereafter they failed to appear. In this fact situation, it cannot be said that the defendant-petitioners was not served or there was any justifiable reason for non appearance of the defendant-petitioners in the suit. They were fully aware that the suit has been restored to its original number and as a matter of fact took part in the proceedings of the suit. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.