( 1 ) WHEN this matter was called out for hearing, learned Counsel for the parties stated that the opponent No. 3 has expired. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that a Civil Application to bring the heirs on record has been filed, but the same is not traceable. However, learned Counsel for the parties agree that the only heirs of the deceased opponent No. 3 are her sons being respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. They also agree that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may be shown as heirs of the deceased respondent No. 3. It is accordingly directed that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 be shown as heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 3, and the cause title of this revision application be amended accordingly.

( 2 ) THE pertinent facts, in brief, leading to the present revision are as under :

( 3 ) THE respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit No. 225 of 1980 against the present applicant for a decree of eviction in respect of the suit premises rented out to the defendant, on the ground of arrears of rent and other grounds. Although the suit was contested, it appears that for certain reasons with which I am not concerned, the suit came to be decreed ex parte, by judgment and decree dated 21st January, 1984.

( 4 ) THE petitioner-defendant, therefore, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. This was Misc. Application No. 3 of 1984, which come to be rejected on merits by the trial Court by its order dated 10th January, 1985. This order of rejection was then challenged by the present petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1985, apparently under Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC. This appeal was withdrawn. It is, therefore, obvious that the rejection order passed on Misc. Application No. 3 of 1984, (whereby the Court which passed the decree, refused to set aside the same on merits) accorded finally to the decree.

( 5 ) THE defendant-judgment debtor thereafter decided to challenge the original decree by filing an appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC. This appeal was filed on 1st february, 1985, and since the same was filed much beyond the period of limitation, an application to condone the delay was also filed on 11th February 1985, being civil Misc. Application No. 69 of 1985. The said appeal and the condonation application was filed in the Court of District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad.

( 6 ) THE application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, being Civil misc. Application No. 69/85 was rejected by the District Court by its judgment and order dated 4th August,1983. The rejection of this application is challenged by the original defendant in the present revision.

( 7 ) THE short question which requires consideration is whether the lower Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the applicant of the application for condonation of delay.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has taken me in great detail through the application for condonation itself, as also the order passed below the same.

( 9 ) ON a combined reading of the application for condonation, and the order passed below the same, and also on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it becomes obvious that the only ground offered as constituting sufficient cause for condonation is that the defendant was pursuing the remedy available to him under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC (an application for setting aside the ex parte decree) and that until the said proceeding was completed and/ or terminated, there was no occasion for the defendant to prefer an appeal. Thus, the defendant decided to file an appeal or made up his mind to prefer an appeal, only after the proceeding under Order 9, Rule 13 stood terminated against the defendant finally. This is also the sum and substance of the submissions made before me in the present revision. As an extension and/or modification of this submission it is also submitted that since the defe