JUDGMENT Yashwant Verma, J. – Heard Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Syed Fahim Ahmad, who appears for the contesting respondents. 2. The petitioner Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur has preferred this writ petition laying challenge to an order dated 14 April 2015, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rampur in Civil Revision No. 54 of 2013, Tajimuddin and others v. Nagar Palika Parishad Rampur and others. 3. By the order passed by the revisional Court, the order of the trial Court dated 17 September 2013 came to be set aside. On the application made by the Nagar Palika Parishad under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C., the lower Court by order dated 17 September, 2013 had set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit instituted by the respondents for perpetual injunction. 4. From the facts as disclosed in the petition, it appears that the respondents had instituted original suit No. 94 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsif, Rampur seeking perpetual injunction against the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur from interfering in the exclusive possession over the suit land and by raising constructions thereon. The Nagar Palika Parishad filed a written statement in the suit proceedings denying the plaint allegations. It appears that the aforesaid suit came to be decreed against which the petitioner herein preferred an appeal which came to be allowed on 17 November, 1978 and the matter stood remanded to the trial Court for determination on the issues framed by the lower appellate Court. On remand, the trial Court proceeded in the suit. However, for reasons set out in the petition as well as the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C., the Nagar Palika Parishad failed to attend to the proceedings. It is their contention that the Pairokar came to know in September, 1993 that the suit record had been summoned by another Court and therefore, he could not know the next date fixed in the matter. The suit ultimately, in the absence of the Nagar Palika Parishad came to be decreed ex parte on 16 September 1994. Against the above ex parte decree, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 was preferred and the same came to be allowed by the Additional Civil Judge on 17 September, 2013. The plaintiff respondents aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a revision which has been allowed on 14 April, 2015. Against the above ex parte decree, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 was preferred and the same came to be allowed by the Additional Civil Judge on 17 September, 2013. The plaintiff respondents aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a revision which has been allowed on 14 April, 2015. It is the above order, which is assailed by the Nagar Palika Parishad. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court had for valid and cogent reasons as disclosed in the application moved by the Nagar Palika Parishad, recalled the ex parte decree. It was contended that the Nagar Palika Parishad had no knowledge of the decree on account of the transfer of the suit to another Court and that in the absence of subsequent notice to the counsel for the Parishad or its Pairokar, the suit came to be decreed in their absence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the explanation which was proffered by the Parishad for absence was clearly not liable to be countenanced inasmuch as they did appear in the suit proceedings even in 1994 and of their own volition, chose not to attend the proceedings. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the trial Court after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the contesting parties had proceeded to hold that the Nagar Palika Parishad did not have notice of the date when the Court below had directed the proceedings to be carried forward ex parte against them. It further took the view that the Nagar Palika Parishad which was a public body should not stand penalised on account of the irresponsible conduct of its employees. Upon an over all conspectus of the submissions advanced before it, the trial Court proceeded to set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit to its original number and parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for final disposal. This order has been interfered with by the lower appellate court while exercising powers of revision. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the order of the trial Court recalling the ex parte decree did not suffer from a manifest error of law, which warranted interference by the lower appellate Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This order has been interfered with by the lower appellate court while exercising powers of revision. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the order of the trial Court recalling the ex parte decree did not suffer from a manifest error of law, which warranted interference by the lower appellate Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The recall of the ex parte decree was made for reasons recorded by the trial Court and upon an appreciation of the contentions advanced before it. This exercise of discretion and the jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court clearly did not commend interference by the lower appellate Court exercising powers within the well designated parameters of a revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court finds force in the submission of the petitioner and is of the opinion that the order of the revisional Court cannot be sustained. 9. It may be noticed that when this petition was initially entertained, the order of the revisional Court had been stayed by an interlocutory order dated 28 July 2015. This has continued to remain in operation till date. Sri Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents had contended that taking advantage of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order passed by this Court, the Nagar Palika Parishad has proceeded to change the nature of the land. In the opinion of this Court, if the averment and allegations made on behalf of the plaintiff respondents be taken to be correct, nothing precludes them from applying for an injunction in the suit, which stands revived and has remained pending on the board of the trial Court till date. Ends of justice would be met, if the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for disposal of the suit itself expeditiously subject of course to cooperation of all the contesting parties. 10. Accordingly and in light of the above, the writ petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 14 April 2015 is hereby quashed. The Trial Court shall now proceed with the suit on merits with due notice to all the parties and shall endeavour to decide the same expeditiously, subject of course to its roster and convenience. Petition allowed.