JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.: - The defendant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial Court whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for setting aside the ex parte decree/order dated 15.11.2010 was dismissed and also the order dated 23.09.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed in appeal against the aforesaid order. 2. The respondent filed a suit in the trial Court for specific performance of agreement to sell. The facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was served in the suit for 10.8.2010 but for his non-presence, he was proceeded against ex parte. The ex parte proceedings against him were set aside on 1.9.2010. 3. According to the petitioner, the suit was pending for 15.11.2010 when he had appeared before the trial Court alongwith his counsel but the plaintiff was absent. The petitioner was informed by the trial Court, that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed in default. The petitioner requested his counsel to apply for copy of the said order. The petitioner, however, learnt later on that the suit was still pending and fixed for ex parte evidence. The petitioner applied to the trial Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC but trial Court without appreciating the facts of the case dismissed his application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and also the paper-book. 5. The story put up by the petitioner in his application before the trial Court was that the petitioner had filed another suit titled “Daya Nand vs. Sarishti Pal Singh” between the same parties. That suit was pending for 3.5.2013 in another Court and for the same date the instant suit was also fixed. The petitioner came to know of pendency of the suit when he heard the call of the case when he was present in the Courts in connection with his own case. 6. It has been observed by both the Courts below that initially the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the suit but the ex parte proceedings were set aside on 01.09.2010. 6. It has been observed by both the Courts below that initially the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the suit but the ex parte proceedings were set aside on 01.09.2010. Thereafter again the petitioner did not appear on 23.05.2011 and the case was adjourned for awaiting his appearance for 31.05.2011. On 31.05.2011, the petitioner having not appeared, he was proceeded against ex parte. Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed on 16.08.2013 i.e. after lapse of 2½ years from 15.11.2010, which is the date stated by the petitioner on which the suit was statedly dismissed in default. The perusal of the impugned order of the trial Court (Annexure P-3) shows that the suit was still pending for ex parte evidence of the respondent-plaintiff for 25.10.2013. If that be so, how an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC could be maintained. The appropriate course available to the petitioner was to file appropriate application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking to set aside ex parte proceedings. In that eventuality, the trial Court could think of permitting the petitioner to join the proceeding at that stage. In any case, according to the petitioner himself he was not aware of the proceedings between November, 2010 upto the year 2013 when he ultimately applied to the trial Court for setting aside ex parte order. 7. The original allegations made in the application are apparently wrong and no attempt was made to make amendments even on inspection of the record. The conduct of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case seems to be to simply delay the proceedings in the suit pending against him. 8. From the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the courts below in declining the prayer made by the petitioner. Therefore, the instant revision is dismissed. 9. The petitioner, however, may still participate in the proceedings at the stage that is pending and in case, the suit has been decided ex parte to take recourse to the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, if permissible. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————