Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The defendant-revisionists have preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the order dated 28.1.2016 rejecting their application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the alleged ex parte order dated 16.2.2004 and the consequent decree passed in SCC Suit No. 20 of 2002.

2. The two sons and a daughter of late Anwar Ahmad Sabari instituted Suit No. 20 of 2002 against Ismail Khan for arrears of rent and eviction. Ismail Khan expired after the institution of the suit leaving behind as alleged his widow, four sons and a daughter. On his death, his two sons Mohd. Israil and Atula were substituted and the suit proceeded against them. The notice of the suit could not be served upon them. Therefore, recourse to substituted service was taken and the notice was published in the news-paper. Thereafter the suit was decreed ex parte on 16.2.2004 in their absence.

3. The aforesaid two defendants in the suit on 30.5.2014 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. contending that they had no knowledge of the aforesaid ex parte decree. They came to know about it in May, 2014 when the same was put i