JUDGMENT M.I.Arun, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2014 passed in M.A.No.20/2011 by Principal District Judge, Kolar, the respondents therein have filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they filed O.S.No.143/1997 against the respondents herein before Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolar for a decree of partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. 3. The respondents entered appearance in the said suit through their advocate but failed to file the written statement, despite granting several opportunities. 4. The suit was posted for trial. During the course of which, first petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. The respondents did not cross examine PW-1 nor they led in any evidence. 5. The trial Court by its judgment dated 18.04.2001, decreed the suit of the petitioners as prayed for. 6. More than three years later, the respondents herein challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.143/1997 by filing an appeal in R.A.No.31/2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kolar. On 24.08.2004, the respondents herein filed a memo praying that the said appeal be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, R.A.No.31/2004 came to be dismissed. 7. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC praying that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/1997 dated 18.04.2001 be set aside. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the said petition. The said application was registered as Misc.No.72/204 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, which was later renumbered as Misc.2/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Malur. The said Miscellaneous application came to be dismissed by an order dated 27.06.2011. 8. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondents herein filed an appeal in M.A.No.20/2011 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kolar. Since there was a delay in filing the said appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties was pleased to allow M.A.No.20/2011 and the suit in O.S.No.143/1997 was restored to file. Aggrieved by the said order in M.A.No.20/2011, the petitioners herein have preferred the said revision petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties was pleased to allow M.A.No.20/2011 and the suit in O.S.No.143/1997 was restored to file. Aggrieved by the said order in M.A.No.20/2011, the petitioners herein have preferred the said revision petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Inspite of service of notice, respondents are absent and unrepresented. 10. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondents herein entered appearance in O.S.No.143/1997 through their advocate but failed to file the written statement or cross examine PW-1 and did not advance their arguments. Thus, they cannot be considered as Exparte and they are not entitled to prefer an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. 11. It is further contended that once the respondents herein filed an appeal challenging the judgment passed in O.S.No.143/1997 and withdrew it without reserving the liberty to file a Miscellaneous application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, the same cannot be entertained. 12. That there was a delay in filing M.A.No.20/2011 also and the said delay has not been condoned and without condonation of such delay, the judgment has been passed and hence, the same is erroneous. It is also contended that even otherwise, the Appellate Court grossly erred in interfering that well reasoned and discretionary order passed in M.A.No.20/2011 and on the said grounds, the petitioners have sought for setting aside the judgment dated 20.12.2014 passed in M.A.No.20/2011 by Principal District Judge, Kolar and restore the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in Misc.No.2/2011 by Senior Civil Judge, Malur, by allowing civil revision petition. 13. The question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is that, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, whether the respondents could maintain a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and was the Appellate Court is justified in allowing the same? 14. Admittedly, the respondents who were the defendants in O.S.No.143/1997 at the first instance, preferred an appeal against the judgment passed in O.S.No.143/1997. Subsequently, they withdrew the same and preferred a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. Order 9 Rule 13 reads as under:- 13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant. 14. Admittedly, the respondents who were the defendants in O.S.No.143/1997 at the first instance, preferred an appeal against the judgment passed in O.S.No.143/1997. Subsequently, they withdrew the same and preferred a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. Order 9 Rule 13 reads as under:- 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 set aside as against all or any of the other defendants 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.] [Explanation. Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of an any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree.] Bare reading of the Explanation to Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC makes it clear that when an appeal is preferred against decree passed Exparte and when the same is disposed of, any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the exparte decree. It means, if the appeal has been disposed as withdrawn, in that event a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is maintainable. It means, if the appeal has been disposed as withdrawn, in that event a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is maintainable. It is immaterial whether the appeal was withdrawn reserving the liberty to prefer an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC or not. 15. In respect of the contention of the petitioners that there was a delay in filing the M.A. and the same is not condoned, it is noticed from the order sheet of the trial Court that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned on 28.10.2011. 16. It is the case of the petitioners that the decree passed in O.S.No.143/1997 is not an exparte decree as the respondents (Defendants therein) had entered appearance through their advocate but failed to file written statement or cross examine PW-1 or advance their arguments. It is the contention of the petitioners that the defendants would have been placed exparte only if they had not entered appearance at all upon service of summons. 17. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Ratna Raj (Dead) by legal representatives vs. Sri.Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Limited and another, (2019) 11 SCC 301 in paragraph Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were appreciating the facts therein has held as follows:- 4. The original plaintiff (appellant herein) G Ratna Raj filed a Civil Suit No.131/1999 against the defendants (Sri Muthukumaraswamy Fund Ltd. - Respondent No.1 herein and Balajee & Ors.) in the High Court of Madras on its original side jurisdiction for redemption of mortgage and for permanent injunction in relation to the mortgaged property. 5. The defendants on being served entered their appearance and filed their written statement. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed the issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The defendants cross-examined the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his case. The case was accordingly posted for recording defendants evidence. 6. At that stage of the proceedings, the defendants did not appear in the suit and, therefore, the Court proceeded ex parte against them. The proceedings in the suit then continued as ex parte against the defendants. The plaintiff then got himself reexamined in the proceedings. He, however, could not be recrossexamined by the defendants because they were already proceeded ex parte in the proceedings. 7. The proceedings in the suit then continued as ex parte against the defendants. The plaintiff then got himself reexamined in the proceedings. He, however, could not be recrossexamined by the defendants because they were already proceeded ex parte in the proceedings. 7. The Trial Court (Single Judge) by judgment/decree dated 25.02.2003 passed a preliminary decree against the defendants in relation to the suit property. This led to filing of the two applications (IA No.340/2006 and IA No. 341/2006) by defendant No.1 before the Trial Court. So far as IA No. 341/2006 is concerned, it was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) for setting aside of the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 and so far as IA No.340/2006 is concerned, it was filed for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. 8. By order dated 14.03.2006, the Single Judge dismissed both the applications and held that the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was not maintainable because the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 was not an "ex parte decree". In other words, he was of the view that since the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 was not an ex parte decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code could not be filed for its setting aside. 9.. Defendant 1 felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Single Judge. The Division Bench held that the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 was an ex parte decree passed in the civil suit by the Trial Court (Single Judge) and, therefore, the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was maintainable with a view to find out as to whether such decree could be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code or not. 10. The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code subject to their paying a cost of Rs.10,000/ to the plaintiff. The civil suit was accordingly restored to its original file for its disposal on merits in accordance with law. 10. The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code subject to their paying a cost of Rs.10,000/ to the plaintiff. The civil suit was accordingly restored to its original file for its disposal on merits in accordance with law. It is against this order, the plaintiff has felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court. 18. Given the facts mentioned in the above case, the Hon ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.21, 27 and 28 has held as under:- 21. Now when we examine the facts of the case at hand keeping in view the law laid down in the case of B Janakiramaiah Chetty (supra), we find that the plaintiff s evidence was recorded and his case was also closed. It is not in dispute that the defendants were placed ex parte on the date when the case was fixed for recording defendants evidence but the same was not recorded due to the defendants absence on the said date. In other words, it was a case where the defendants did not lead any evidence. XXXXX 27. As mentioned above, the Trial Court did proceed to hear the suit ex parte by taking recourse to the Order 9 Rule 6 (a) in terms of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code because on that day, the plaintiff was present when the suit was called on for hearing whereas the defendants were absent despite service of summons and accordingly the Trial Court passed the preliminary decree. Such decree, in our opinion, was an "ex parte decree" within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 6 (a) read with Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and, therefore, could be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 on making out a sufficient ground by the defendants. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Division Bench was justified in allowing the applications filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and, in consequence, was justified in setting aside the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 passed in O.S. No.131/1999 treating the said decree as "ex parte decree". 19. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Division Bench was justified in allowing the applications filed by defendant No.1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and, in consequence, was justified in setting aside the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 passed in O.S. No.131/1999 treating the said decree as "ex parte decree". 19. The above case makes it clear that when the defendants enter appearance but does not contest the case, he will be treated exparte and the defendants can maintain a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. 20. Based on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court has exercised its discretion wherein, it has opined that the ends of justice will be met by giving an opportunity to the respondents herein to prove their claims. I do not deem it appropriate under the circumstances, to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.