1. - Heard.

2. The respondent filed a suit for eviction, on the ground of default & personal necessity. The suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant-petitioner. On 15.9.1998, after the completion of the final arguments in the ex-parte proceedings, the defendant-petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. Thus, the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, was moved after the final arguments and before the pronouncement of the judgment. The application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, was moved u/O. 9, R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), r/w Section 151, CPC. The learned Court below dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioner, holding that the application is not maintainable u/o. 9, R. 7, CPC and that the provisions of Section 151, CPC. are not attracted.

3. In the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (2) RLR 399 , this Court has held that in a case, where, the final arguments have been heard and the case is reserved for judgment, the provisions of O. 9, R. 7, would not come into play, as the case has not been adjourned for hearing. After fixing the date for judgment, the Court has no jurisdiction, to invoke O. 9, R. 7, CPC. It has further been held that the Court is competent to set aside the ex-parte proceedings under the inherent power under section 151, CPC.

4. The observations of this Court, are as under :

"Thus, the question of jurisdiction is involved in this case, and the Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order u/O. IX R. VII, CPC. It may be altogether different matter that after the pronouncement of the judgment the party affected may move an application u/O. IX R. 13 for setting aside the decree and the judgment of the Court below. There is no specific provision in CPC that what the party will do during the intervening period, i.e., after the hearing of the arguments and pronouncement of the judgment. Should the, party wait till the judgment is pronounced and thereafter should move an application u/O. 9 R. 13 of the CPC? If the party waits and moves an application at a later stage for setting aside the judgment and decree, he will have to explain the cause of delay of the intervening period. This may lead to a position that the party may not he able to explain the cause of delay of the intervening period, i.e., after the hearing of the arguments and before the pronouncement of the judgment. Where the law is silent and where it does not by directly or by implication prohibits to do anything that the Court has inherent powers under section 151. CPC:, to meet such contingencies. The Court can set aside the ex-parte order not u/0. 9 R. 7 but under the inherent powers under section 151, CPC under the extraordinary circumstances It will not be out of place here to mention that the powers vested in the Court under section 151, CPC should be used sparingly and should not be used ordinarily. In the instant case, thus, I am of the view that the question of jurisdiction is involved as the Court has applied the provisions of R. 9 0. 7 of CPC. The Court has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of O. 9 R. 7 of the CPC."

5. Evidently, the application of the defendant-petitioner, in the instant case in hand, for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, is maintainable under section 151, CPC, even though, it is not maintainable u/0. 9., R. 7, CPC. The impugned order of the learned Court below, to the effect that the application of the defendant-petitioner is not maintainable even under section 151, CPC, is legally infirm and is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Court below, is set aside to the extent of non-maintainability of the application of the defendant- petitioner under section 15 1 CPC. The application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, is maintainable under section 151 CPC. The learned Court below will now decide the application on merits, under the p