Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.— Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is an order dated 22.08.2012, passed by learned trial court whereby the objection moved by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) against the application moved by the defendants (respondents herein) under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 03.05.1994 has been rejected. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Deoria, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial court dated 22.08.2012 has been dismissed. I have perused the impugned orders and have also gone through the documents annexed with the writ petition. A suit for permanent injunction and declaration to the effect that certain orders passed by the District Magistrate are null and void was filed by the plaintiff before the trial court in which on issuance of summons, defendants appeared through counsel by way of filing Vakalatnama. It appears that written statement on behalf of defendants could not be filed and on 28.04.1994 an order was passed that the case will proceed under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC, as neither the defendants nor the learned counsel who had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendants were present before the trial court. After the order dated 28.04.1994, the suit proceeded ex-parte and it was decreed by the trial court on 03.05.1994. The defendants (respondents herein) moved an application for recalling ex-parte decree dated 03.05.1994 under Order 9 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against the aforesaid application moved by the defendants an objection by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) was filed stating therein that ex-parte decree passed under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC is only appealable and no application for recalling of such an ex-parte decree would lie under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in a case where ex-parte decree has been passed by the trial court under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC for the reason that despite time having been made available, defendants failed to file their written statement, the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of CPC are not invokable by the party seeking recall of such an ex-parte decree. In this view, his submission is that the objection filed by the petitioner against the recall application moved by the respondents has wrongly been rejected by the learned trial court and further that the revisional court has also not appreciated the legal position in its correct prospective. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As observed above, it is worth noticing that on 28.4.1994 when the learned trial court passed the order to pursue the proceedings under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC; neither the defendants nor their counsel were present. No doubt, the summons issued by the learned trial court were served on the defendants and the defendants had also engaged a counsel, who had put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama, but it appears that thereafter no written statement on behalf of the defendants was filed and as per the allegation made in the application for recall even the information about the case was also not given to the defendants. A reference, at this juncture, can be made to a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Irfana Begum vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal; reported in 2000 (1) AWC 242 . In para 13 of the said report it has been held that if the order passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC has been passed in presence of the defendants for his failure to file written statement, an application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC will not be maintainable. In para 14, it has further been observed by the Division Bench in the case of Irfana Begum vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal (supra) that if the order is passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC and a decree is drawn up in absence of defendant or his counsel there is no doubt that such a decree would be ex-parte decree and hence application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC would be maintainable. Paras 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder:- "13. So far as the second view is concerned, in our opinion, if the order under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. has been passed in presence of the defendant for his failure to file written statement and a decree is drawn up, application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. will not be maintainable. So far as the second view is concerned, in our opinion, if the order under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. has been passed in presence of the defendant for his failure to file written statement and a decree is drawn up, application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. will not be maintainable. The language used is plain and simple and does not admit any kind of ambiguity. We are in respectful agreement with this view. 14. So far as third view is concerned, in our opinion, the view taken is based on sound principles of law and the cases contemplated under this view are as a matter of exception to the second view. If the order is passed under Order VIII. Rule 10. C.P.C. and a decree is drawn up in absence of defendant or his counsel there is no doubt that such a decree would be ex parte and an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. would be maintainable at the instance of defendant for setting aside the ex parts decree. In such a case, he could satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. The order passed in such case under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. and decree drawn up though appear to be on merits and in default of filing written statement but nonetheless it was passed in absence of defendant and it could be termed ex parts. Another exception would be A case where the Court passed the order under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. simply on the ground that the defendant did not file written statement and failed to examine the case of the plaintiff as to whether he was entitled for a decree or not. It shall also cover such cases where the Court below has not called upon the plaintiff to give evidence nor the plaintiff gave any evidence in support of his case. The Court remains under obligation to apply Its mind to the facts stated in the plaint and to assess whether the decree could be passed or not. Even suit can be dismissed in absence of written statement, for which a sufficient scope has been left in Order VIII, Rule 10. C.P.C. by using words "or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". Even suit can be dismissed in absence of written statement, for which a sufficient scope has been left in Order VIII, Rule 10. C.P.C. by using words "or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". Thus, under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., it is not that the Court could only pronounce judgment against the defendant who failed to file written statement but even the suit could be dismissed. In such a situation, the Court was under obligation to see that the suit is decreed only when the plaintiff is entitled for the same and he has proved his case." In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Irfana Begum vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are in conformity with the said dicta as admittedly though the suit had proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC in absence of any written statement on behalf of the defendants but neither the defendants nor their counsel were present. Hence the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. _____________