ORDER 1. Present civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the petitioner/revisionist/defendant against the order dated 1.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court by which the application under Order IX rule 13 read with section 151 of CPC and application under section 5 of Limitation Act have been dismissed. Petitioner has also challenged the order date 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the appellate Court whereby miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 1.10.2015 before the lower appellate Court, has also been dismissed. Therefore, this revision has been preferred. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that, respondents instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits which was registered as Civil Suit No.26-A/2011. Notice was issued in the case and the present petitioner as defendant caused his appearance and filed written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed by the trial Court. Evidence was led by the plaintiffs in support of their pleadings. Thereafter, petitioner remained absent before the trial Court and therefore, trial Court proceeded ex parte and passed the judgment and decree dated 22.9.2011. It is submitted that counsel for the petitioner Shri Rajesh Sharma who used to appear in the case could not communicate with the petitioner and because of his ill health he could not appear, therefore, ex parte judgment and decree has been passed. Therefore, petitioner got a notice of execution on 4.10.2012. Thereafter, he contacted his counsel on 5.10.2012 wherein he came to know that earlier advocate Rajesh Sharma left the office and, therefore, matter could not be attended. On contacting the said advocate, he informed the petitioner about the file in the office of his senior. Thereafter, he contacted in the office of his senior and then one counsel inspected the record on 8.10.2012 and came to know about ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.9.2011. Thereafter, by completing the procedural formalities, on 6.11.2012, application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC was filed. The trial Court considered the application and the case was dismissed on merits as well as on the point of delay. Thereafter, petitioner preferred miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII rule 1 of CPC before the appellate Court but the said appeal was also dismissed, therefore, the present civil revision under section 115 of CPC has been preferred. 3. The trial Court considered the application and the case was dismissed on merits as well as on the point of delay. Thereafter, petitioner preferred miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII rule 1 of CPC before the appellate Court but the said appeal was also dismissed, therefore, the present civil revision under section 115 of CPC has been preferred. 3. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, main ground raised by the petitioner before the Court below in respect of non-appearance on behalf of petitioner was medical ailment of petitioner because he suffered from cirrhosis of liver and therefore, could not attend the case and because of the fact that matter was civil suit wherein regular attendance of a party is not equired, therefore, said non-appearance was bona fide and thus, learned Court ought to have considered the said aspect and by not considering the same, learned Courts below have erred in passing of the order rejecting the application of petitioner under Order IX rule 13 of CPC. Delay in filing of said appeal has been explained by the petitioner in the application itself because after getting knowledge when execution notice was received by the petitioner, he contacted the office of advocate whom he engaged and he came to know that the counsel who was attending the case left the office of his senior and started practicing independently and after meeting the said counsel, petitioner came to know about file which was kept in the office of his senior and thereafter, the case was prepared and was filed, therefore, no delay has been caused after the date of knowledge. Petitioner is a poor illiterate person and, therefore, did not understand the legal procedure. He referred the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another [ AIR 1981 SC 1400 ], as well as judgment of this Court in the matter of Nathua v. Badri Prasad [ 2015(II) MPWN 145 ], and order dated 31.3.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.276/2013 as well as the order dated 28.7.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Dev Kumari alias Devki Prajapati v. Vinod Prajapati in Review Petition No.360/2016 and submits that the case in hand also needs to be considered in the light of mandate as referred above. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned order. It is submitted on behalf of respondents that Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of same counsel/same office in the civil suit in which the case proceeded ex parte against the defendants and in the proceeding under Order IX rule 13 of CPC also, Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of same office and the counsel, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the case was assigned to one advocate. If one of the counsel was indisposed due to any reason then another counsel was certainly available to attend the case. Defendant participated in the suit proceedings till the evidence of petitioner is over and thereafter just to protract the litigation he remained ex parte. Learned counsel for the respondents further referred the findings given by the trial Court in the application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC preferred by the petitioner wherein trial Court has held that the case was pending since 2005 and defendants did not prefer to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses despite getting many opportunities. It is further submitted by the respondents that petitioner is not an illiterate person and he used to come regularly to the office of his counsel. Some other cases are also going on in which petitioner is a party, therefore, he visited occasionally to the office of senior counsel who was handling the matter. He relied upon AIR 1973 SC 76 , The Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway [ AIR 1971 SC 2324 ], M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co.(P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh and others [ AIR 1997 SC 107 ], [Ram Avtar and others v. Ram Dhani and others [ (2002)1 SCC 535 ], Madanlal v. Shyamlal [ (2013)8 SCC 719 ], Bal Gopal Maheshwari and others v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and submits that scope of civil revision is limited and matter does not deserve any indulgence and be dismissed with costs. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 6. In the present case, petitioner as defendant appeared before the trial Court in the suit preferred by the respondents for possession and mesne profits. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 6. In the present case, petitioner as defendant appeared before the trial Court in the suit preferred by the respondents for possession and mesne profits. Petitioner filed written statement and sought adjournment many times when the respondents/plaintiffs filed affidavit for evidence. Therefore, in the present case petitioner knew pendency of case very well. Similarly, suit was at the stage of evidence when the defendant did not appear in the suit proceedings and proceeded ex parte. Usually at the time of evidence, plaintiff and defendant are being directed by their respective counsel to personally contact their respective counsel for preparation of affidavits and for preparation of cross examination of the witnesses. Therefore, contention of the petitioner about absence of communication between the counsel and the petitioner does not augur well. This aspect is further substantiated by the fact that petitioner engaged a senior counsel in whose office Shri Rajesh Sharma advocate was working as junior counsel and might have been earmarked the case for supervision. His ailment and subsequent absence from the Court proceedings could have been compensated by appointing some other counsel by the same office for keeping track of the case. No such pleadings have been raised by the petitioner to accept this submission that because of absence of counsel he should not suffer. 7. Trial Court while considering the application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC as well as the application under section 5 of Limitation Act and after elaborate discussion and considering the evidence of Dr. J.P. Goyal led by the petitioner in support of his submission came to the conclusion that advocate of the petitioner as well as petitioner himself were having full knowledge about the case and about its listing on 29.2.2011. Ex parte judgment and decree has not been passed on 13.9.2011 but on 29.2.2011, therefore, sufficient time was given by the trial Court while passing ex parte judgment and decree. From the statement of Dr. Goyal it is apparent that certificate was given by him to Mohanlal (present petitioner) on 28.10.2012 for ten days rest. Similarly, certificate was given on a proforma on which medical certificate is issued to a Government employee. Petitioner raised the ground of his absence on 13. 9.2011 because of his personal illness but ex parte judgment and decree has been passed on 22.9.2011. Similarly, certificate was given on a proforma on which medical certificate is issued to a Government employee. Petitioner raised the ground of his absence on 13. 9.2011 because of his personal illness but ex parte judgment and decree has been passed on 22.9.2011. Petitioner remained idle for more than one year and when petitioner knew about pendency of the case very well then his conspicuous silence for thirteen months, could not be explained by him. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC on merits as well as on the point of delay. The trial Court in paras 5 to 12 of its judgment has dealt with in detail about proceeding. 8. The trial Court categorically given the finding that not only petitioner but his counsel Rajesh Sharma also knew ex parte judgment very well since beginning and therefore, no indulgence had been shown. 9. The appellate Court also considered the point of delay as well as on merits and after appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner rightly came to the conclusion that petitioner deliberately remained ex parte because case was handled by senior advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj and same was handed over to his office rather then to the advocate Rajesh Sharma. The appellate Court from paras 8 to 34, in detail, discussed the contours of the controversy and aspect of delay and laches as well. Cross examination of petitioner also goes against the petitioner because in paras 11 and 14 petitioner admitted the fact about his occasional meeting with his counsel in the original civil suit and fact regarding appointment of Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj as his counsel for the original civil suit. He also admitted the fact about pendency of some other cases under the care of same counsel. Therefore, probability is remote about his ignorance vis a vis status of the case. 10. Judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable in the present fact situation of the case wherein petitioner knew proceedings of ex parte from the very beginning and he could not establish the fact that his counsel did not give him proper information regarding suit proceeding. Said judgments move in different factual realm wherein the counsel did not inform proceedings to the party. Here, the petitioner knew this fact. Said judgments move in different factual realm wherein the counsel did not inform proceedings to the party. Here, the petitioner knew this fact. Even at the time of cross-examination, adjournments were sought by the petitioner as defendant time and again. Therefore, the judgments cited by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. 11. Scope of civil revision under section 115 of CPC is very narrow and limited as propounded by the Hon'ble apex Court time and again since AIR 1966 SC 153 , Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others, [ AIR 1971 SC 2324 ] (supra), (2002)1 SCC 535 (supra), and (2013) 8 SCC 719 (supra). Therefore, on the basis of cumulative analysis and in the considered opinion of this Court, no jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity or impropriety has been caused by the Courts below in passing the impugned order. 12. Resultantly, civil revision filed the petitioner under section 115 of CPC is hereby dismissed. No costs.