A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 8-11-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S D.) Baroda rejecting the application of the present appellant to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the present appellant. It is the appellants case that on 8 1985 the plaintiff-appellant could not remain present in the Court at 11-00 A M. and hence the learned trial Judge passed the ex parte decree on the ground that there was no evidence in support of the appellant-plaintiffs case. However at 2-00 P. M. on the same day the appellant-plaintiff gave an application to set aside the ex parte decree and to proceed with the hearing of the suit on merits. The learned Judge rejected the said application. ( 2 ) MR. A. J. Patel learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Judge was not justified in setting aside the ex parte decree although the application was given on the same day soon after the ex parte decree was passed. He has also submitted that on account of unavoidable circumstances the appellant-plaintiff reached the Court late and therefore in the interest of justice the learned Judge should have set aside the ex parte decree on the someday and proceeded with hearing the suit on merits. Mr. M. B. Shah learned counsel for the respondents-defendants states that the suit was disposed of on merits and the ex parte decree was passed as the plaintiff had not remained present in the Court at the time when the suit was called out. He has therefore submitted that the learned Judge was not fully justified in rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. ( 3 ) IT is true that the parties must remain present before the Court when the matter is called out. The Court is not bound to wait for any party. The Court would be justified in disposing of the matter due to in absence of the party. But when the party appears and gives satisfactory explanation for not remaining present the Court should take a lenient view especially when the application for restoration or setting aside ex parte decree is made on the same day. The Court would be justified in disposing of the matter due to in absence of the party. But when the party appears and gives satisfactory explanation for not remaining present the Court should take a lenient view especially when the application for restoration or setting aside ex parte decree is made on the same day. The primary concern of the Court should be to dispose of the cases before it on merits so as to see that substantial justice is done. Disposing of the cases on technicalities especially the absence of a party at a time when the suit is called out may lead to considerable injustice. Therefore the Court must consider the application for restoration especially when it is made soon after the dismissal order in a practical and pragmatic manner so as to see that the ends of justice are not defeated. The technicalities should never be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. In the circumstances of the case the learned Judge should have allowed the application set aside the ex parte decree and proceeded with hearing the suit on merits in view of the fact that the application for restoration was made on the same day soon after the ex parte decree was passed. ( 4 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8 passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit on merits and dispose it of as early as possible. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .