( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the Judgment passed in C. M. A. No. 25/92 on the file of District Judge, Nizamabad.

( 2 ) THE defendants are the revision petitioners. In this case the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 10-4-1990 and the case was adjourned for the evidence of defendants on 16-4-1990, and the case was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, it was posted to 16-7-1990. On that date, the defendants were not ready and requested for time. However, the Court did not grant any time and closed the defendants side and on 6-8-1990 the decree was passed on merits. The defendants filed application under Order 9, Rule 12 C. P. C. to set-aside the decree. The Trial Court held that such application is not maintainable, as it is not an ex parte decree and that the correct provision is Order 17, Rule 2 proviso. As the decree was passed under Order 17, Rule 2 C. P. C. it cannot be set-aside.

( 3 ) THIS finding was confirmed by the district Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Judgment the present revision is filed.

( 5 ) IN this case, admittedly, there is no evidence on the part of the defendants. After several adjournments wh