JUDGMENT This is a revision filed by the defendant/non –applicant under Section 115 of C.P.Code against the order dated 28.8.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2007, which, in turn, arise out of order dated 6.1.2007 passed by Munsiff, Tezpur, in Misc. Case No.32 of 2003. By impugned order, the two courts below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under order 9 rule 13 of the Code and in consequence declined to set aside the ex-party decree passed by the trial court against the petitioner in one civil suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner. So the short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether two courts below were justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under order 9 rule 13 ibid? Facts of the case are short. The petitioner is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed the civil suit being T.S.No 60 of 2002 against the petitioner. In this suit, the defendant (petitioner herein) was duly served with the notice of the plaint and he also entered appearance and contested the suit for some time through his Laywer and then remained absent on one date. The trial court then proceeded exparte against the petitioner (defendant) and accordingly passed an exparte decree on merits by decreeing plaintiff’s suit on 29.9.2003 in relation to subject matter of the suit. The defendant (petitioner) then filed an application under order 9 rule 13 ibid for setting aside the exparte decree dated 29.9.2003. The ground on which the application was made for setting aside the decree was that petitioner failed to contact his lawyer and then fell ill which caused default on his part resulting in suffering the exparte decree by him. According to the defendant, there was a sufficient cause within the meaning of order 9 rule 13 ibid and hence, the exparte decree should be set aside and suit be restored to its file for fresh decision on merits. The plaintiff opposed the application and denied the cause alleged by the defendant and contended that since the cause was not a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 and hence no case was made out for setting aside the exparte decree. By order dated 6.1.2007, the learned trial judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The plaintiff opposed the application and denied the cause alleged by the defendant and contended that since the cause was not a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 and hence no case was made out for setting aside the exparte decree. By order dated 6.1.2007, the learned trial judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner. He held that the cause shown by the petitioner in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 ibid was not a sufficient within the meaning of order 9 rule 13 and nor it was made out on facts. The petitioner felt aggrieved filed Misc. Appeal before the first appellate court. By impugned order, the first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order, the defendant felt aggrieved and filed this revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the revision as in my opinion, It has no merit. In the first place, the question as to whether a particular cause was a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 ibid was essentially a question of fact. Such cause therefore was required to be proved by the parties with the aid of oral/documentary evidence. Once any finding was rendered by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, then such finding became a concurrent finding of fact and was binding on the revisionary court, while hearing revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is only when such finding, though concurrent, was found to be against the pleadings or evidence or any provision of law or when it was found to be so perverse to the extent that no judicial man of average capacity could ever record, a case for interference in revisional jurisdictional could be held made out, but not otherwise. Coming now to the facts of this case and apart from what is stated above, I notice that it was not a case where defendant was not noticed of the plaint or that he had no knowledge of the suit or that he remained absent since inception for want of notice and did not get any opportunity to contest the suit. On the other hand, it was a case, where the defendant was duly served with the notice of the suit, he entered appearance and then also contested the suit through his lawyer and then remained absent. Now the question as to whether his lawyer informed him or did not inform him or whether he contacted his lawyer or did not contact was solely his look out and if he did not do so then he had to suffer for his own fault. That apart, he also did not take any steps for a long time to find out the progress of the suit assuming that he could not do so on the date when he was placed exparte. No documents were filed to show his illness on any date except the word of mouth. Looking to all this, if the two courts below came to a conclusion that defendant was either negligent or deliberate in his attempt to avoid the prosecution of suit despite knowing its filing etc. then such finding cannot be interfered with in this revision being a concurrent finding of fact. It does not involve any question of jurisdiction so as to invoke my revisionary jurisdiction. In the light of foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this revision which thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.