( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for Short the Code ) is directed against the order dated 7th December, 1983 of the Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner"s application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are: That Mr. S. P. Gupta plaintiff respondent on 18th October, 1982 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,622. 70 on account of price of goods against the defendant-petitioner. Summons of the suit were issued for 19th April, 1983. The petitioner was served with the summons on 3rd February, 1983 but there was no appearance on its behalf on 19th April, 1984. The trial court ordered the defendant to be proceeded ex-parte and fixed 17th August, 1983 for recording ex-parte evidence which was recorded and the suit was adjourned for hearing arguments and orders to 30th Septem her, 1983.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-defendant on 30th September, 1983 fifed an applicalion to set aside the order proceeding ex-parte supported by an affidavit of the Director of the defendant company. The petitioner in its application has alleged that it was served on 3rd February, 1983 with the summons and a copy of the plaint but the said two papers were got mixed up and misplaced with other papers and, therefore, no appearance could be made in the court on 19th April, 1983, that about a week betore i. e. on 23rd September, 1983, its newly appointed Law Officer in the course of his searches found the summons and the copy of the plaint which were handed over to the counsel Who on enquiries came to know that the defendant had been proceeded exparte and the suit was fixed for hearing ex-parte arguments on 30th September, 1983. The petitioner submitted that its non-appearance was unintentional, bona fide and for reasons beyond its control and there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed his reply dated 6th December, 1983 denying the allegations of the defendant alleging that the story put forward Was a concocted one and its absence was deliberate, that the defendant was aware of the proceedings, that no hearing was left and as such there was no ground to set aside ex-parte proceeding. The reply is not supported by any affidavit. The trial court by the impugned order dated 7th December, 1983 dismissed the application holding that no good cause was shown, that no affidavit of the concerned Law Officer was filed, that each day s delay was not explained and the application was filed after eight months. The trial court however allowed the petitioner to participate in future proceeding and fixed the case for arguments and on 7th January, 1984 passed a decree against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner on 2nd February, 1984 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and also an application for stay of execution. The trial court by order dated 3rd February, 1984 directed the defendant-judgment debtor to deposit the decretal amount within a week and adjourned the case to 2nd March, 1984 for reply and arguments. It appears that none appeared for the applicant on 2nd March, 1984 and the decretal amount was also not deposited. The court therefore dismissed the stay application and consigned the file to record room. No order on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code appears to have been passed by the trial court.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed this revision on 14th February, 1984. The execution of the decree dated 7th January, 1984 was stayed on its furnishing bank guarantee for the decretal amount to the satisfaction of the executing court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code was dismissed illegally by the trial court that there was good cause and no opportunity was given to substantiate the allegations contained in the application, that the application was filed within lime in accordance with Order 9 Rule 7 of the code. The learned counsel for