JUDGMENT Dinesh Gupta, J. This second appeal is preferred against the judgement dated 28.02.1978 passed by Additional District judge, Basti in Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1975 arising out of O.S. No. 66 of 1970. 2. The brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff respondent (hereinafter called, 'the respondent') filed Original Suit which was registered as O.S. No. 230 of 1975 for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 11.08.1969 and for possession if the plaintiff was found out of possession. 3. The suit was instituted on the sole allegation that the sale deed in question was obtained by impersonation and by placing some imposter in place of plaintiff and got executed the impugned sale deed. 4. The suit was contested by defendant-appellant (hereinafter called, 'the appellant') who filed a very cryptic written statement denying all the allegations made by the respondent. Later on the appellant absented herself from the proceedings of the Suit and the Suit proceeded ex parte and culminated into ex parte decree by which impugned sale deed was cancelled and Suit of the respondent was decreed. 5. The appellant filed appeal before the learned District Judge, which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge and registered as Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1975 and which was also dismissed vide their order dated 28.02.1978. 6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed present second appeal before this Court. 7. At the time of admission, substantial questions of law were framed, which were taken by the appellant in her ground to appeal which reads thus: - (a)Because the defendant appellant having failed to appear on the date adjourned by the Court and her counsel having stated to have no instructions the trial court could either decree the plaintiff's suit ex parte or decide the Suit after consideration of the evidence of the parties only if the defendant appellant would have adduced her entire evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence and in the instant case the defendant appellant having neither adduced her entire evidence or a substantial portion of her evidence the trial court has no jurisdiction to dispose of the case on merit. (b)Because the lower appellate court has committed substantial illegality in holding that the defendant appellant should have moved an application against the order of the trial court under Order IX rule 13 C.P.C. 8. (b)Because the lower appellate court has committed substantial illegality in holding that the defendant appellant should have moved an application against the order of the trial court under Order IX rule 13 C.P.C. 8. Later on an application was moved on 25.09.2012 by the appellant for addition of substantial question of law and the Court vide order dated 07.11.2012 added following substantial question of law : - (a)Whether judgement and decree of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court is vitiated on account of non framing of issue and findings recorded as required under Rule 5 of Order XX CPC? (b)Whether the lower appellate court was justified to record its independent findings while affirming the judgement and decree of the trial court and affirming the observations of the trial court which is not based on any trial? 9. Notices were issued to the respondent. However, in spite of service and appearance of counsel on behalf of respondent, when the case was listed for final hearing, the counsel for the respondent did not turn up and the appeal was heard in the absence of counsel for the respondent. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that: - The trial court has decreed the Suit ex parte and has committed an error of law in not giving its finding on each and every issue framed by the Court and also erred in not discussing the evidence available on record. The court has committed illegality in pronouncing the judgement without giving any reasoned and cogent finding. Even while passing an ex parte decree, the court should have given a detailed judgement giving finding on each and every issue. That a person against whom an ex parte decree has been passed has two remedies either he can move an application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. or could have filed appeal against the ex parte decree and in the instant case, the observations of the appellate court that the appellant should move an application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. is against the law. The counsel further submitted that while challenging the ex parte decree before the first appellate court, the appellant can show the reasons which prevented him from appearing before the trial court resulting into an ex parte decree. The counsel further submitted that while challenging the ex parte decree before the first appellate court, the appellant can show the reasons which prevented him from appearing before the trial court resulting into an ex parte decree. The counsel further submitted that the appellate court has also committed an illegality in affirming the finding recorded by the trial court which was based on no evidence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon AIR 1988 Karnataka 93 Syed Haisanulla and others Vs. Ahmad Beig and another, AIR 1986 Calcutta 430 Smt. Sulochana Devi Bubna Vs. Gobinda Chandra Nag and others, 2005 (1) AWC 609 (SC) Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another, AIR 1993 Madhya Pradesh 194 Neemabai Vs. Gyanbai and others. 12. I am unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. The judgement passed by the trial court is an ex parte judgement passed on separate sheets and Suit was decreed. Admittedly, the Suit was for cancellation of the sale deed and the sole ground taken by the respondent was that the impugned sale deed was executed by impersonating him and also by placing some imposter in the office of Sub Registrar. An expert was examined, who gave his report stating therein that the thumb impression of the respondents are different from the thumb impression available on the impugned sale deed and the respondent also examined himself as witness, who also stated that the sale deed was not executed by him and it is a case of impersonation. Relying upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff there was sufficient material before the Court to decree the Suit ex parte. It is important to mention here that although an opinion of the fingerprint and handwriting expert was also filed on behalf of the appellant but the expert was not examined to prove that report. The judgement contains all the ingredient of a judgement and it can not be said that there is any perversity in the judgement passed by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and also while affirming its decision, the appellate court has also taken into consideration the expert evidence as well as the statement of the respondent and also discussed the same. The appellate court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and also while affirming its decision, the appellate court has also taken into consideration the expert evidence as well as the statement of the respondent and also discussed the same. It was also contended before the appellate court that the Suit was wrongly decreed by the trial court under Order 17 Rule 3. Negating this contention, the appellate court has clarified that in fact the Suit was decreed under Order 17, Rule 2 and for that purpose the mode available under Order IX of the C.P.C. was taken into consideration. 14. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the appellant will be of no help to him since they are based on different facts. In AIR 1993 Madhya Pradesh 194 case (supra) the facts were totally different. In the Suit for specific performance, the title of the person, who entered into contract was denied. The Court without deciding the title passed ex parte decree, which was the issue before the appellate court. In 2005 (1) AWC 609 (SC) case (supra), the facts were entirely different. In that case, the Suit was decreed ex parte and application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was moved, which was dismissed. The revision filed against the proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 was also dismissed and the appeal filed against the order passed in misc. case under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was also dismissed. Thereafter a regular Civil Appeal was filed that is not the facts in the present case. In AIR 1986 Calcutta 430 case (supra), the Court was of the view that the judgement was not passed on all the issues. It is only improper. It is nowhere held that it is an illegal judgement. Similarly in AIR 1988 Karnataka 93 case (supra), the judgement was passed in a cryptic manner in the ordersheet, which was deprecated by the appellate court which was not in this case. In the present case, the court has passed judgement on separate sheets relying upon the evidence of the fingerprint expert and respondent. In view of the above, the contention raised by the appellant has no merit. No other point discussed before me. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.