JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Sanjay Singh for the petitioners and Sri T.A. Khan for the caveator. 2. This petition has been filed against the order of Additional District Judge dated 24.11.2015 by which the revision filed by respondent-2 has been allowed and the order of trial court dated 12.5.2014 was set aside. 3. Smt. Ladwati, respondent-2 filed a suit (registered as O.S.No. 76 of 2007) for specific performance of contract dated 18.8.2006 executed by Arvind in her favour. In the suit after service of summon, the defendant did not file written statement, thereafter trial court by order dated 20.9.2007 proceeded ex parte against the defendant. Later on the defendant appeared before the court and filed an application for recall of the order dated 20.9.2007. The trial court by order dated 25.2.2010 allowed the application of defendant on the cost of Rs. 800/- and granted time up to 9.3.2010 for filing written statement. On 9.3.2010 the defendant appeared but could not file written statement. The case was adjourned on 9.3.2010 and thereafter on 25.3.2010, 11.5.2010, 4.6.2010, 6.7.2010 and 20.7.2010. Although on these dates defendant appeared before the court below but he did not file any written statement. Thereafter the court proceeded ex parte and by judgement dated 27.8.2011 decreed the suit ex parte. Subsequently Arvind filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on 1.4.2013 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.8.2011. It has been stated in the application as well as in the affidavit that due to inability, the defendant could neither deposit the cost of Rs. 800/- as imposed upon him by order dated 25.2.2010 nor he could file written statement. He could also not pay the advocates fee as such the ex parte decree dated 27.8.2011 is liable to be recalled. In the meantime, Arvind died on 7.8.2013 and his heirs were substituted. The trial court after hearing the parties by order dated 12.5.2014, although did not record any finding relating to not filing of written statement as well as absence of defendant on the date of decree dated 27.8.2011, but in view of giving liberty of hearing to the parties, set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.8.2011 and restored the suit to its original number. Respondent-2 challenged the aforesaid order in revision (registered as Revision No. 38 of 2014). Respondent-2 challenged the aforesaid order in revision (registered as Revision No. 38 of 2014). The revisional court after hearing the parties by order dated 24.11.2015 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 12.5.2014. Hence this petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 5. The revisional court has recorded a categorical finding that by order dated 25.2.2010, the earlier order dated 28.9.2007 was recalled and defendant was given time for filing written statement in the suit. Thereafter the case was adjourned on 9.2.2010, 25.3.2010, 11.5.2010, 4.6.2010, 6.7.2010 and 20.7.2010 and on these dates although the defendant has attended the court but he could not file written statement. Thereafter by order dated 19.8.2010, the case was proceeded ex parte and by order dated 27.8.2011 decreed ex parte against the petitioner. There was no sufficient cause for setting aside the decree dated 27.8.2011. On these findings the revision was allowed. 6. Order 9, Rule 13 CPC provides as follows : 13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant.- In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an Order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall make an Order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be sent aside as against all or any of the other defendant also: Provided further that no court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. 7. 7. In this case, the summon was duly served upon the defendant and the ground taken by the defendant that he has sufficient cause for non-appearance when the case was called for hearing. The revisional court found that although on the application of the defendant, the order dated 28.9.2007 was recalled by order dated 25.2.2010 and the defendant was given time to file written statement but instead of several adjournments of suit on various times the written statement was not filed. Order 8, Rule 1 proviso enable the trial court to grant 90 days time for filing written statement. In this case, the defendant has availed more than 90 days time. As such the suit was proceeded ex parte according to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC and decreed ex parte by order dated 27.8.2011. There is absolutely no ground for setting aside the ex parte decree. 8. The judgement of revisional court does not suffer from any illegality. The petition has no merit, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.