JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby the order dated 08.05.2009, passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application moved by respondents no.2 and 3 for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, has been reversed. 3. Father of the petitioner late Kunwar Tej Pratap Singh instituted a suit for declaration and possession which was registered as Regular Suit No.6/1977. The defendants in the suit filed their written statements and accordingly issues were also framed by the learned trial court on 06.12.1978. However, it appears that after putting in appearance before the learned trial court and filing written statements, the defendants could not appear before the court which resulted in the suit being ex-parte decreed on 05.07.2004. 4. On 18.10.2004 the respondent no.19-Ladies Clup, Pratapgarh, moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004, which was registered as Misc. Case No.192 of 2004. Husband of respondent no.2 and father of respondent no.3-late Raja Arun Pratap Singh also moved similar application seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No.76/2006. Both the Misc. Cases were clubbed together and by a common order dated 08.05.2009 the applications were rejected. 5. Against the judgment and degree dated 05.07.2004, the respondent no.19 had also preferred First Appeal From Order, namely, F.A.F.O. No.996/2009 before this Court which was dismissed on 16.11.2009 for non-prosecution under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules. 6. The Ladies Club, Pratapgarh i.e. respondent no. 19 in this petition, thus, did not file any appeal against the order dated 08.05.2009 rejecting the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. Respondent nos.2 and 3 preferred Misc. Appeal against the order dated 08.05.2009, passed by the learned trial court, which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge by means of the order dated 25.09.2013, which is under challenge in this petition. 7. Appeal against the order dated 08.05.2009, passed by the learned trial court, which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge by means of the order dated 25.09.2013, which is under challenge in this petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has attempted to defend the order passed by the learned trial court on 08.05.2009, whereby the application moved by the respondent nos.2 and 3 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004 was rejected stating therein that the predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2 and 3 had completely failed to establish sufficient cause for his non-appearance at the time when the trial was proceeding before the learned trial court. He has also stated that the learned trial court has given a categorical finding that the predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2 and 3 was appropriately served and had also filed the written statement, as such the ground of summons having not duly been served was not available to him. 8. Shri Rathaur has categorically submitted that so far as the other ground available for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to the effect that the defendant appeared before the learned trial court and established that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the suit is concerned, the learned trial court has given a finding based on appropriate appreciation of the evidence available on record that the predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2 and 3 could not satisfy the trial court about the sufficiency of cause which can be said to have prevented them from attending the proceedings before the trial court. 9. The plea taken by the predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2 and 3 in the application made under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2004 was that since 2002 he fell ill and thereafter in connection with his treatment he moved from Pratapgarh to Lucknow, where he was admitted for considerably a long time in a hospital and was also operated for heart disease. It was also stated in the application that after he recovered from the heart ailment, he again suffered misfortune of suffering from stomach disease and it was only after recovering from the stomach disease that he got inspections of the paper book done and came to know that the suit was decreed ex-parte. It was also alleged by him in the application that, in fact, the learned counsel, who was contesting the matter on his behalf could not intimate the progress and ultimate decreeing of the suit to him and hence his ailment and other facts and circumstances would constitute sufficient cause which prevented the defendant-predecessor in interest of respondents no.2 and 3 to appear before the learned trial court. Learned trial court though considered the contents of the application in the light of the evidence available on record, however, did not agree with the plea taken by the predecessor in interest of respondent nos.2 and 3 stating therein that merely because he was suffering from heart ailment would not have prevented him to move and enquire about the developments of the case. Thus, the learned trial court has concluded that the predecessor in interest of respondent no.2 and 3 had completely failed to establish any sufficient cause which can be said to have prevented him from participating in the proceedings before the learned trial court. The appellate court, however, has reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial court. 10. The appellate court appears to have perused the entire records of the learned trial court and has concluded that on 07.07.2003 an application seeking amendment in the plaint was allowed and thereafter on 18.07.2003 was fixed for filing additional written statement in view of the amended portion of the plaint. The appellate court further proceeds to record in the impugned judgment and order that on 18.07.2003 lawyers were abstaining from work which resulted in postponing the matter to be fixed on 10.09.2003. The impugned order further records that on 10.09.2003 learned counsel representing both the parties were present and accordingly the matter was fixed for evidence on 30.09.2003, however, on account of the fact that on 30.09.2003 the Presiding Officer was busy in inspection, but the plaintiff filed his affidavit in evidence and thus the matter was fixed on 09.10.2003. The impugned order further records that on 10.09.2003 learned counsel representing both the parties were present and accordingly the matter was fixed for evidence on 30.09.2003, however, on account of the fact that on 30.09.2003 the Presiding Officer was busy in inspection, but the plaintiff filed his affidavit in evidence and thus the matter was fixed on 09.10.2003. The impugned order passed by the appellate court further records that on 09.10.2003 an affidavit in ex-parte evidence was filed that is why the orders-sheet records that the matter would be fixed on 16.10.2003 for ex-parte arguments. 11. The finding recorded by the appellate court to the effect that once on 10.10.2003 learned counsel representing both the parties were present then as to how and under what circumstances the court proceeded to fix the matter on 16.10.2003 for ex-parte arguments/hearing is noticeable. The finding recorded by the learned appellate court in this regard is categorical wherein it has been observed and found by the learned appellate court that there is no order in absence of the defendants before the learned trial court that the matter would proceed ex-parte. The appellate order further records that on 06.11.2003 the matter was partly heard and thereafter with some adjournments on account of the fact that the lawyers are abstaining from work, the matter was decided ex-parte on 05.07.2004. 12. As a matter of fact, the learned trial court below in its judgment and order does not offer any explanation as to how and under what circumstances in absence of any order to proceed ex-parte, the case proceeded before him ex-parte. The learned appellate court has given a categorical finding that on 10.09.2003 both the parties were represented by their counsel, however, on 30.09.2003 the matter could not be taken up on account of the fact that the learned Presiding Officer was busy in inspection and further that on the next date i.e. 09.10.2003 ex-parte evidence in form of an affidavit was filed. Between 10.09.2003 and 16.10.2003 the matter was listed twice i.e. on 30.09.2003 and 09.10.2003. On 30.09.2003 the matter was got adjourned for the reason that the Presiding Officer was busy in inspection and on 09.10.2003 an affidavit in ex-parte evidence was filed. On 16.10.2003 the matter was listed for ex-parte hearing. Between 10.09.2003 and 16.10.2003 the matter was listed twice i.e. on 30.09.2003 and 09.10.2003. On 30.09.2003 the matter was got adjourned for the reason that the Presiding Officer was busy in inspection and on 09.10.2003 an affidavit in ex-parte evidence was filed. On 16.10.2003 the matter was listed for ex-parte hearing. However, from a perusal of the order passed by the appellate court it is clear that no order by the learned trial court was ever passed in absence of the defendant that the matter will proceed ex-parte. It is further to be noticed that there is no order passed by the learned trial court that the evidence to be led by defendant has been closed. 13. From the aforesaid discussions, I do not find it a case fit for any interference in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh. 14. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 15. However, I may only notice that the suit has been pending since the year 1977 and it may qualify to be one of the oldest suits pending in the courts of Uttar Pradesh, as such it is provided that the contesting defendants, namely, respondent nos.2 and 3 will pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- and not Rs.5000/- to the plantiff. The cost shall be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants on the next date which is being fixed by this Court before the learned trial court. The petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3 shall be present either personally or through their counsel before the learned trial court on 11.04.2016. 16. The learned trial court will, thus, expedite the proceedings of the suit after affording opportunity to the defendants to file additional written statement in view of the amendment of the plaint, which was allowed earlier. 17. The parties to the suit shall lead their evidence and fully cooperate with the court proceedings. The learned trial court will conclude the proceedings of the suit by 31.10.2016. It is further provided that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the Court below nor shall be sought by the parties to the suit.