1. The present petition is preferred against the order dated 18th of March, 2013 passed by the court of learned Munsiff, Sumbal, Sonawari in Civil Suit titled Abdul Majid & ors v. Gulzar Ahmad whereby the application of the defendant-petitioner herein for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, initiated vide order dated Ist of September, 2004, has been rejected. 2. The court below by virtue of the order impugned has rejected the ground on which the defendant-petitioner herein was seeking the setting aside of ex-parte proceedings. Negligence was attributed to the counsel engaged by the petitioner/applicant. 3. It will be seen that ex-parte proceedings were initiated by virtue of order dated Ist of September, 2004 and the application for setting aside the same was preferred before the court below on 4th of April, 2012. 4. The court below observed in the order impugned that the defendant-applicant had been negligent in following his case and checking the status thereof for as long a period as seven years. 5. Today, none has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. H.U. Salati, Advocate has appeared for the caveator-respondents and submitted that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the amendment to the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:- "Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any order made, or an order deciding an issue, in the court of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding." 6. What emerges from the reading of the proviso is that there is a prohibition now cast on the exercise of powers by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless it is seen that the order impugned passed by the court below is such that if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. 7. The order impugned in the revision petition at hand is one whereby application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings has been rejected. 7. The order impugned in the revision petition at hand is one whereby application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings has been rejected. The fact that a party has been set ex-parte in civil proceedings before a court does not, in any manner, prevent such a party to appear before the court and to proceed to participate in the hearing of the suit and proceedings before the court in future. The only effect of setting a party ex-parte is that he cannot be relegated to the position, he would have occupied, if he had appeared. 8. It applies to a particular hearing for which a party was afforded a chance to appear but did not avail himself of the opportunity. However, if such a party does appear thereafter, he cannot be prevented from participating in the suit proceedings simply because he did not appear on the earlier date of hearing. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the order impugned, rejecting the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, cannot be said to be the one, which if it had been made in favour of the petitioner, would have finally disposed of the suit as the applicant can, as a matter of right, participate in the proceedings in the suit on the adjourned or subsequent dates of hearing. 10. The petition is, therefore, clearly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed along with the interim application No. 221/2013.