1. Plaintiff-respondent sued the petitioner and his father for eviction from the suit shop under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Initially, the suit was instituted against the petitioner alone. Subsequently, vide order dated 7.12.1990 Aziz Mistry was also joined as defendant No.2. The petitioner submitted his written statement, although, his father was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently, the petitioner also absented from the proceedings of the civil suit and an ex parte decree for the eviction was passed on 28.4.1995. It was contened that Aziz Khan was not duly served with summons whereas the petitioner was seriously ill from 16.4.1995 to 16.5.1995 and was unable to move on account of illness.

2. It was further submitted that the petitioner on regaining health contacted his lawyer on 27.6.1995 when he came to know about the ex parte decree. He applied for certified copy on 27.6.1995 which was partly supplied to him on 7.7.1995 in the sense that the certified copy of the decree was not delivered. He again submitted an application for certified copy of the decree which was received by him on 1.8.1995.

3. The defendant-applicant submitted in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code that they came to know about the ex parte decree on 27.6.1995 and, accordingly, the application for setting aside the ex parte was duly submitted (it is important to note that no application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay along with the application for setting aside decree was submitted. The plaintiff decree holder submitted his reply and opposed this application. He refuted the averments contained in the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. He also raised an objection about limitation.

4. The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence, found that service on Aziz Mistry was valid on 24.1.1995. It was further found that the defendants were father and son and the son used to participate in the proceedings. It was found by the learned trial Judge as a fact that the petitioner was capable of making movements even during his alleged illness.

5. Considering the various discrepancies, the learned trial Judge found that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of the defendant. Accordingly, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code was dismissed on 12.7.2000 and the appeal preferred against the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 31st July 2000. It may be noticed that Aziz Mistry died during the pendency of the appeal and his name was deleted. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant-petitioner has preferred the present revision application.

6. After hearing both the counsels, I am of the considered opinion that the revision application is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.

7. Learned lower appellate Court has considered the evidence recorded during the enquiry under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. The detailed discussion and appreciation is contained in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned order. Learned lower appellate Court, after a correct appreciation, has rightly disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner.

8. I am conscious of the fact that the revisory powers cannot be exercised to interfere into the findings of fact unless there is a perversity or there is non-application of mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed reported as [AIR 1991 SC 455] has held :

"It is well settled position in law that under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below by taking a different view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only to interfere with the findings of fact if the findings are perverse or there has been a non-appreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence on record by the Courts below. Simply becaus