1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned dated 13.1.2005 by which the trial Court rejected the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC with cost of Rs. 50/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant No. 2 (petitioner herein) is resident of village Kasoda and on account of non-availability of means he could not reach the Court in time and by the time he reached the Court ex-parte proceeding already initiated against the petitioner and on the same day application for setting aside the ex-parte order has been moved which was rejected without assigning any reason.

3. Upon perusal of the order impugned it appears that the application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC has been rejected on the ground that sufficient cause has not been assigned by the petitioner in the application. Prima facie it appears that the trial Court has not considered the reason mentioned in the application.

4. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the order impugned dated 13.1.2005 and remit the matter back to the trial Court and the trial Court shall pass fresh order considering the fact mentioned in the application under Order 9, R