( 1 ) AN application under Order IX. Rule 13 for setting aside ex parte order dated 30. 7. 1984 was hied on 11. 10. 1984 on the ground that no summons were served on the petitioners-defendants. The learned trial court by its order dated 6. 8. 1986 passed in Case No. 49 of 1984 allowed the said application and set aside the ex parts decree. A revision being Civil Revision No. 96 of 86 was moved. By an order dated 23. 10. 1986. learned District Judge. Etawah had allowed the said revision. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

( 2 ) MR. Ajal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision order is wholly illegal and the learned Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in that he had allowed the revision and held that the application was filed beyond time and that the defendants had knowledge of the suit and the decree and that too all the defendants had filed vakalatnama on 18. 2. 1980.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that it is not necessary to deal with the question raised by him inasmuch as Article 123 of the Limitation Act provides 30 days time for setting aside a decree to