The legal point established is the determination of the maintainability of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code based on the completion of the hearing of the suit and the need for further arguments.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 15/3/2000, thereby allowing the defendants application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code and setting aside the order of ex-party proceedings subject to payment of Rs. 2,000. 00 as cost.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the relevant facts leading to the present revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff herein has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant viz, Union of india through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, government of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary.

( 3 ) THE defendants were served with the summons of the suit but they absented and so were ordered to be proceed ex-parte vide an order dated 19/8/1999. Ex-parte evidence was recorded on 6/10/1999 and the case was adjourned to 8/10/1999 for arguments. On the adjourned date none was present and, therefore, the case was adjounrned to 19/11/1999 for arguments/orders. On 19/11/1999 appearance was put in on behalf of the defendants through counsel and the case was. adjourned to 25/11/1999 for further proceedings. On 24/11/1999 an application under Order 9 Rule 7 was filed on behalf of the defendants praying for setting aside the order of ex-parte proceedings which came up for hearing on 25/11/1999 and the court ordered the plaintiff to file reply to the said application and application under section 5 of the Limitation Act by 15/12/1999. Reply to the applications was filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant also filed their written statement on 15/12/1999. On a consideration of the matter the learned trial court allowed the application. The following observations made by the trial court are relevant:-

"the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff cannot be accepted. In the whole of the plaint the plaintiffs have not disclosed that the land has been notified by the government as forest land, so it belongs to Government. There is litigation before the Hon ble Supreme court and the copies of the judgments and orders dated 25/1/1996, 20/3/1996, 3/4/1996 and 10/5/1996 have been placed on record of this case. These judgments show that matter has already been decided by Hon ble Supreme Court, no reference given to these judgments by the plaintiff in the plaint. "

"as held in various judgments by hon ble Supreme Court that the working machinery of the Government is inactive and that the officials being lithargic to protect the interest of the government, the Government should be given liberal, attitude for the sake of public welfare. "

"even if the decree is passed ex-parte, the defendants are not debarred from filing the application under Order 9 rule 13. If later on the application comes under Order 9 rule 13 the proceedings of this case will be reversed to the point A. The passing of the decree, when the defendants have come prepared and have presented their defence, will be of no use. The decree will be on the basis of facts disclosed only by the plaintiffs, and the facts disclosed by the defendants will not be discussed in the ex-parte decree, which would mean partial justice. This partial justice is avoidable at this stage- Moreover the case was not fixed for orders, it was adjourned for hearing arguments. "

( 4 ) THERE is no appearance on. behalf of the respondents despite service of the notice and so the matter has been heard in their absence. I have heard shri G. N. Aggarwal , learned counsel for the petitioner and have given my thoughtful consideration to his submissions. The foremost contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable at the stage it was filed because the hearing of the matter had already been concluded and, therefore, the only remedy available to the defendants was to make an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte decree, if one was passed. In support of his conteni