Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS revision arises out of proceedings for setting aside an ex parte decree. In the suit no written statement was filed. On July 27, 1974 the court ordered that the case would be heard ex parte and September 7, 1974, was fixed for ex parte hearing. The case was then adjourned on some occasions and was finally taken up for hearing on November 20, 1974. On that date again the defendant did not appear. The court proceeded to hear the case ex parte and after concluding the hearing reserved the judgment. November 21, 1974 was fixed for delivery of judgment and on that date the judgment was delivered. The defendant moved an application under rule 13 of order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the ex parte decree. An explanation was given by the defendant for his absence on November 21, i.e. the date on which the judgment was pronounc ed, but no explanation was given for the absence of the defendant on November 20, 1974, when the suit was called on for hearing. The trial court finding that the case was taken up for hearing on Novem ber 20 and not on 21 rejected the application. An appeal was filed against this order and the District Judge dismissed the appeal. now, the defendant has come up in revision. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the ob servation in the judgment that the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant was false is without any basis. The observation of the court below was not relevant in the circumstances of the case. The trial court too had held that the affidavit was false. It appears that both the courts below were under a misapprehension. There was no material for holding that the affidavit filed on behalf of the defen dant was false as there was no affidavit filed to contradict the alle gations made in the applicant's affidavit. Probably, the courts below thought the affidavit to be false, because it mentioned that the date fixed in the case was November 21, 1974. There is nothing wrong in that statement because in the case the date was fixed as November 21 although it was the date not for hearing of the case but for pronouncement of judgment. But even though the courts below erred in making the observation in the judgments and pro ceeding on erroneous considerations they have arrived at the cor rect conclusion. Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the setting aside of an ex parte decree in case the defendant satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. The suit was called on for hear ing on November, 1974, and the hearing had concluded on that date. November 21 was not the date fixed for hearing of the case but only for pronouncement of the judgment. The absence of the respondent on that date was immaterial Rule 6 of Order XXII brings out clearly the distinction between the date of hearing and the date of pro nouncement of judgment. It provides. "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place." The defendant, therefore, if he wanted to get the ex parte decree set aside, had to show sufficient cause for his absence on November 20 and not on November 21. The application and the affidavit did not show any cause for absence of the defendant on November 20. The application was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The courts below therefore committed no error in dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The revision accordingly has no merit and is dismissed.;