JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners/plaintiffs (for brevity, “the plaintiffs”) assail the legality and validity of the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chabra, District Baran (for brevity, “the learned Appellate Court”) in Civil Misc. Appeal No.10/2014 whereby, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Atru, District Baran (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants (for brevity, “the defendant”) under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, has been quashed and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.05.2000 has been set aside.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant was decreed ex-parte by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2000. Alleging that he was never served with summons, the defendant-Late Mangi Lal @ Mangya filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.05.2000 which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.08.2014. The civil misc. appeal preferred thereagainst has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 29.05.2015, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that findings of the learned Appellate Court are perverse inasmuch as it has failed to appreciate that Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on 10.07.2002 on behalf of Shri Mangi Lal @ Mangya in the Execution Petition No.20/2001 filed by them for execution of the decree dated 24.05.2000 evidencing that the defendant was well aware of the ex-parte judgment and decree way back in the year, 2002 and no reason was furnished as to why the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was filed as late as on 30.05.2009. He, in this regard, invited attention of this Court towards the Vakalatnama dated 10.07.2002 filed by Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma which bears thumb impression of the defendant-Shri Mangi Lal @ Mangya as also the corresponding order sheet of the learned trial Court. He submits in absence of any explanation as to why the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was not moved within limitation after 10.07.2002, the learned Appellate Court erred in allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 29.05.2015 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 23.08.2014 be restored.

4. Although, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant opposed the prayer; but, when confronted with the Vakalatnama submitted by Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma before the learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No.20/2001 on 10.07.2002, could not dispute that it bears thumb impression of the defendant-Mangi Lal @ Mangya.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC on the premise that on 10.07.2002, Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel has put in appearance on his behalf in the execution petition filed by the plaintiffs for the execution of the ex-parte decree dated 24.05.2000 and hence, it is established that he had knowledge of the ex-parte judgment and decree at least from that day; but, no reason was assigned as to why the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was not filed within limitation thereafter; but, with inordinate delay of about seven years. The learned Appellate Court, while setting aside the order dated 23.08.2014 and allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, has held that no Vakalatnama allegedly filed by Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma is a