A third person may have locus standi to file an application under Section 151 C. P. C. to set aside an ex parte decree if he has some interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for setting aside ex parte decrees obtained by the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5.

( 2 ) THE disputed land is in the nature of a Pokhari (small pond ). The contesting opposite parties had filed suits claiming Sirdari right therein which were decreed on 7-9-1962 by the trial Court. It appears that after a lapse of five years, the contesting opposite parties asserted their right based on ex parte decrees and started saying that they would not permit anybody to irrigate their fields from the disputed land which led the petitioner to make enquiries with regard to the claim of the contesting opposite parties and thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 20-9-1967 for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 7-9-1962. A true copy of the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree is attached with the writ petition and has been marked as Annexure i. The petitioner had sought the relief of setting aside the ex parte decrees in favour of the contesting opposite parties on the allegations that the contesting opposite parties had obtained ex parte decrees collusively and fraudulently. It had also been alleged that the pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was in collusion with the contesting opposite parties and had wrongly and illegally helped the contesting opposite parties in obtaining the ex parte decree.

( 3 ) THE contesting opposite parties filed objection against the allegations made by the petitioner in the application for setting aside ex parte decrees and asserted that the petitioner had no right to file the application for setting aside the ex parte decrees and that no fraud was practiced upon the court in obtaining the ex parte decrees and that valid decrees have been obtained which could not be set aside at the instance of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE trial court, through its judgment dated 10-6-1969, set aside the decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties as is evident from Annexure "ii" attached with the writ petition. Against the judgment of the trial court dated 10-6-1969 the contesting opposite parties filed two revision petitions which were allowed by the revisional court through its judgment dated 7-3-1973. A certified copy of the judgment of the revisional court has been attached with the writ petition and has been marked as Annexure "iii". Against the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) ON 26-9-1979 I allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned judgment of the revisional court and had observed as below:-

"to my mind, the approach of the learned Member is not correct. More-over, the learned member has not considered an important aspect that if fraud has been practised upon the court by a party in obtaining ex parte decrees and if those decrees have been set aside, there was no occasion for the re-visional court to interfere with the orders of the trial court setting aside the ex parte decrees. It has often been observed that even if the trial court had acted illegally or without jurisdiction but its order has done justice, it does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Since the learned Member has approached the problem from wrong angle, his judgment deserves to be quashed. "

( 6 ) I had allowed the writ petition in the absence of the counsel for the contesting opposite parties whose name did not appear in the cause list on the relevant date, hence I recalled my order dated 26-9-1979 and I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties before me is that the petitioner was not a party to the suits in which ex parte decrees had been passed in favour of the contesting opposite parties, hence he had no right to make an application for setting aside ex parte decrees.

( 7 ) SECONDLY, he has contended t