' This revision petition has been maintained by plaintiffs against judgment dated 8-6-1980 whereby a learned Additional District Judge accepted appeal of the respondent against trial Court's rejection of his application under Order IX, rule 13 of the C.P.C. And set aside the ex parte decree dated 18-11-1978 passed by the Trial Court against him. Reasons therefor set out in para. 5 of the appellate judgment are that whereas the defendant had filed an affidavit in support of his plea for setting aside of ex parte decree, the plaintiffs had not filed any affidavit to controvert his averment regarding absence out of station in discharge of official duty, on 18-11-1978 and that in their written- reply they had not even specifically denied that fact which stood established by a certificate produced by him from his department and his Advocate had also furnished his affidavit that he was busy at Kasur on the said date. While finding that sufficient cause existed for default in appearance before the Trial Court, learned Additional District Judge also observed that the defendant's counsel had been appearing regularly and in view of his conduct it was in the fitness of things that he should have been waited for till the end of the day. In result, he set aside the ex parte decree dated 18-11-1978, alongwith the Trial Court's refusal on 13-11-1979 to recall the same.
2. Rule 13 of Order IX, C.P.C. Provides that an ex parte decree may be applied for by a defendant to be set aside and if he satisfies the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing at the relevant time, then "the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him". It has not been herein urged that factual premises for the passing of the impugned appellate-judgment may be either incorrect or non-existent and all that has been contended is that pica of the defendant was liable to fail on account of his omission to provide any explanation with regard to the absence of his second counsel.
' I am unable to discover any good reason why it was absolutely necessary for the defendant- respondent to have provided such an explanation because his own presence in the Court on the relevant date (18-11-1978) would have saved him from being placed ex parte and, hence, sufficient cause with regard to his own being prevented from appearing in the Court should suffice for the setting aside of the ex parte proceedings/decree. Since there is the unrcfuted explanation for absence on account of one of the counsel being away to Kasur and his presence in the Court on that date would have also independently averted any adverse situation, therefore, satisfactory explanation of his absence should also have led to the same result. Hence, the explaining of the absence of second counsel would have been a mere superfluity, so far as the net result is concerned.
3. There is no error of law or jurisdiction involved in the appellate judgment which is well-founded and does not call for any interference.
4. Revision petition has no force. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.