Short Note : 1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed by the respondent Jagdish Prasad against the appellant Smt. Omkumari, his wife, for restitution of conjugal rights. It was fixed for recording evidence of the parties on 8-1-1976. Since neither the appellant nor her witnesses were found present at the hearing dated 8-1-1976, the trial, Court proceeded exparte against her, recorded evidence of the respondent and passed a decree exparte against the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside exparte decree alleging inter alia that neither she nor her clerk Daryanmal could attend the hearing due to indisposition. Nevertheless her counsel did appear when the case was called on for hearing. Since, however, the witnesses of the respondent has not come to the Court by that time, his counsel sought some time with the result that her own counsel went to attend to his other work in another Court. But on his return thereafter at 1-30 P.M, he found that the case had already been decided exparte. The respondent denied these allegations except the initial appearance of the counsel for the appellant before the Court. After the trial of the point in issue between the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the application finding that the appellant failed to prove that her absence at the hearing dated 8-1-1976 was occasioned as alleged by her. Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed. The appellant as A.W.2 has categorically stated that she had been suffering from fever since a week before the date of the hearing and there was no challenge to this statement in her cross-examination. Then there is evidence of Daryanmal (A.W.1) that having sustained a sprain in his leg, he could not attend the hearing dated 8-1-1976, even so he had informed about his inability to attend the hearing to the counsel for the appellant. In addition to this the presence of the counsel for the appellant when the case was initially called on for hearing is admitted by the respondent. As against this, Bhawarsingh (N.A.W.1) would have it that he saw Daryanmal (A.W.1) and Smt. Omkumari (A.W.2) quite hale and hearty on 8-1-1976. He is, however, a chance witness on his own saying. In addition to this the presence of the counsel for the appellant when the case was initially called on for hearing is admitted by the respondent. As against this, Bhawarsingh (N.A.W.1) would have it that he saw Daryanmal (A.W.1) and Smt. Omkumari (A.W.2) quite hale and hearty on 8-1-1976. He is, however, a chance witness on his own saying. What is more, he is evidently interested in the respondent. That Daryanmal (A.W.1) used to appear on behalf of the appellant has been admitted by the respondent as N.A.W.2. He has no personal knowledge whether the appellant and her clerk were or were not indisposed on 8-1-1976. 2. It is, no doubt true that Dr. Satyaprakash, who is said to have given a certificate with regard to the illness of the appellant, has not been examined. It is also true that in her application, the appellant had averred that she was ill with effect from 6-1-1976. For these reasons alone, however, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree could not have been dismissed in the circumstances of this case. Also incorrect is the observation of the learned Judge of the trial Court that there was no independent corroboration to the testimony of the appellant. The corroboration there is, as shown above, in ample measure. As already stated, the appellant was not at all cross-examined with regard to her illness. There is nothing irreconcilable in her statement on oath as A.W.2, and her allegation in the application with regard to the duration of her illness Despite that innocuous variation, the fact remains that she was suffering from fever on 8-1-1976 and, therefore, could not attend the hearing. Nor is there any reason to disbelieve Daryanmal (A.W.1) that he was ill and, therefore, could not attend the hearing. Presence of the appellant's counsel when the case was first called on for hearing is undisputed. True that the appellant had not summoned her witnesses for the hearing dated 8-1-1976, but for that there is her explanation that the respondent had made many a default in this behalf previously and, as such, she did not summon the witnesses adding that she was not possessed of means to squander away money. Then again, there is no challenge on oath to the submission of the appellant on affidavit that the case could not be taken initially due to absence of the witnesses of the respondent. Then again, there is no challenge on oath to the submission of the appellant on affidavit that the case could not be taken initially due to absence of the witnesses of the respondent. Nor is there any proof of the allegation to the contrary that the counsel for the appellant sought 10 minutes time to file an application, but did not turn up. We are thus, satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearance when the suit was called on for hearing on 8-1-1976. Appeal allowed.