Pankaj Naqvi, J.— Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This is a plaintiffs' revision, against an order dated 16.05.1995, passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 90 of 1991, whereby application, filed by the defendant/O.P. for setting aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13? C.P.C. r/w Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts' Act, has been allowed. 3. The revisionist/plaintiff filed a suit for rent and ejectment and in the suit, 11.09.1991 was the date fixed. Subsequently, case stood transferred to the Court of VIIth Addl. District Judge, Aligarh, wherein 07.10.1991 was the date fixed. The next date fixed was 14.11.1991, for ex pane hearing. On 16.11.1991, the suit was decreed ex parte. 4. The case of the defendant in the recall application was that, no notice of the aforesaid transfer was given to him; since 09.11.1991, his father was unwell and was suffering from Asthma and doctor concerned had advised him complete rest and that there was none in his family except him who was attending his father, to attend the proceedings of the Court and to attend the case from 12.11.1991 to 16.11.1991. 5. Objections were filed by the revisionist/plaintiff to the recall application, wherein it was stated that along with summons of the suit, copy of the plaint was served upon the tenant and in token thereof the tenant had also appended his signatures. It was further stated that the summon stood served on 20.07.1991 and no written statement was filed and thereafter, on 11.09.1991, was the date fixed and subsequently, summons were again served on 18.09.1991. It further stated that tenant had been granted five opportunities to file his written statement but he did not do so. However, It stated that in compliance to ex parte decree dated 16.11.1991, the tenant deposited the decretal amount of Rs.9845.75 paisa, but not mesne profits for the period 05.11.1991 to 21.11.1991, and thus the restoration is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Trial Court held that the amount of Rs.9845.75 paisa deposited by the tenant, pursuant to the ex parte decree dated 16.11.1191, was substantially complied with in compliance with the requirement of Section 17 of the Act and deficiency is negligible. 6. The Trial Court held that the amount of Rs.9845.75 paisa deposited by the tenant, pursuant to the ex parte decree dated 16.11.1191, was substantially complied with in compliance with the requirement of Section 17 of the Act and deficiency is negligible. Moreover the Court further found that there was no intimation of the transfer from the Court of District Judge on 17.10.1991 to the Court, which passed the ex parte decree and therefore, the provisions of Rule 89-A of General Rules (Civil) were infringed. The Court further observed that the respondent/opposite party had also filed a medical certificate, certifying the illness of his father. Thus, the Court on totality of considerations, set aside the ex parte decree dated 16.11.1991 and restored the suit. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist, that the impugned order is bad in law, inasmuch as, it was not? disclosed in the restoration application as to how and when the tenant came to acquire knowledge of the ex parte decree. 8. The Court finds that no doubt there are no averments in the restoration application as to how and when the respondent came to acquire knowledge of the ex parte decree dated 16.11.1991, nevertheless the restoration application was also filed on the ground that provisions of Rule 89-A of the General Rules (Civil), were violated which provides that in case of a transfer from one court to another, it shall be the duty of both the transferor as well as transferee Court to ensure that the parties/counsels are duly informed. In Balbir Singh Chauhan Vs. Vijai Kumar Agarwal 1987(1) Allahabad Rent Cases 336, this Court had held that where provisions of Rule 89-A of General Rules (Civil) are not complied with, then as it being a mistake of the Court, which ought not to cause any prejudice to a litigant, defendant is not obliged either to file a restoration application or to comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Trial Court observed that while transfering the case from District Judge to the Court, which passed the ex parte decree, no notice was ever sent to the respondent. The law laid down in the above case is also applicable to the present case. There is no challenge to this finding in the present revision. 9. The Trial Court observed that while transfering the case from District Judge to the Court, which passed the ex parte decree, no notice was ever sent to the respondent. The law laid down in the above case is also applicable to the present case. There is no challenge to this finding in the present revision. 9. The Court further finds that on the facts of the present case, the impugned order is eminently just, as the proceedings of the suit were restored for hearing on merits, which is not liable to be interferred with. 10. The Civil Revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. _