( 1. ) IN the suit instituted by the revision-petitioners, April 2, 1968, was fixed for evidence of both the parties. On that date, the defendants counsel applied for adjournment on the ground that Shantibai and Ganpatrao were not able to attend the Court because of illness. Seven witnesses for the plaintiffs were present. The trial Court rejected the application for adjournment and at that stage counsel for the defendants reported no instructions and retired. The trial Court forthwith recorded evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses including the plaintiff himself and closed the case. On April 6, 1968, the trial Court delivered its judgment and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

( 2. ) THE defendants made an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil procedure Code, for setting aside the ex parte decree. That was resisted by the plaintiffs. The trial Court rejected it by its order dated March 3, 1969.

( 3. ) THE defendants appealed. The learned Additional District Judge, raipur, allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree.

( 4. ) WHEN this revision was initially laid before me for hearing parties, a preliminary question was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, was not competent inasmuch as the defendants counsel appeared on April 2, 1968, when the case was called on for hearing. The ex parte decree was, therefore, not under Order 17, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code but it was under Order 17, rule 3 of the Code. Since the question was of every day occurrence, I formulated certain question for decision by a larger Bench. That reference was answered by a Bench of five Judges. See Ramrao v. Shantibai (1977 M PL J 364 = 1977 J L J 147. ).

( 5. ) THUS, in view of the opinion of the Full Bench, the preliminary question raised by Shri Padhye must be decided against the petitioners.

( 6. ) SHRI Padhye now urges that the order passed by the appellate Court is not in accordance with law. The learned Additional District Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally, i. e. in contravention of the law. It is urged that the trial Court, after marshalling the evidence of both the parties, gave its reasons why it did not believe Shantibai (A. W. 1), Ganpatrao (A. W. 2)and Ramkrishna Khandelwal Dentist. The trial Judge also discussed the evidence of Ramrao (NA. W. 1) and Suraj Bali (N A. W. 2 ).

( 7. ) ON a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, I find that it gave its reasons elaborately why it did not believe the defendant-applicants evidence. But what the learned Additional District Judge did was just to indicate briefly the points deposed to by Shantibai, Dr. Ramkrishna Khandelwal and Ganpatrao and also by Ramrao. However, it does not at all appear from its order that it considered the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the applicants evidence. It does not appear from the appellate order whether the learned Additional District Judge even perused the order of the trial Court at all or not.

( 8. ) THE question that arises is whether the appellate Court, can in the matter of appreciating oral evidence, completely shut its eyes as to what the trial Court said, and arrive at a contrary finding.

( 9. ) IT is a proposition well settled that the appellate Court is bound to consider the reasons on which the trial Court arrived at findings of fact. And, in case, after appreciating the oral evidence produced by the parties, the appellate Court come to a different conclusion, though bearing in mind that it has not enjoyed the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, it can certainly record its own findings holding that those reached by the trial Court were erroneous. In such a case, three things must appear from the judgment of the appellate Court: (1) That it applied its mind to the reasons given by the trial Court; (2) that it was present to its mind that the trial Court had the advantage of seeing and hea