Short Note : 1. This is an application for revision of an order whereby an application made by the State of Madhya Pradesh for setting aside an order for the hearing of the suit exparte has bean rejected by the trial Court. 2. The suit instituted by the non-applicants Anandilal and others against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the defendants Shankarlal, Chunnilal and Basantilal, the counsel for the State remained absent and the trial proceeded exparte for some time. While the suit was still pending, an application was made by the State for setting aside the order for the suit to proceed exparte but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is contended that the grounds urged by the State for the setting aside of the order should have been considered and the State should have been permitted to contest the suit on merits. I have heard the learned counsel for the non-applicants. In my opinion, this revision application should be allowed for the following reasons. Held : From the record of proceedings of the trial Court as also from the application, on which the order has been passed, it is clear that the trial Court passed an order for the suit to be heard ex parte against the State on the ground that the counsel was absent and on one of the dates he pleaded no instructions. It also appears that at different stages of the trial of the suit more than one counsel had appeared for the State. Apparently there was no particular reason as to why the State which had put in appearance should not have been represented by the counsel engaged in this case. If the counsel was negligent, then for that negligence State cannot be made to suffer. Even the non-applicant plaintiffs had in their reply to the side application urged that in case the application is allowed costs may be awarded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the prayer made by the State should have been allowed. Revision allowed.