JUDGMENT A.N. Varma and N.N. Mithal, JJ. - We are disposing of this appeal at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 12-4-1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Meerut rejecting the application filed by the appellants for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 28-10-1987. 3 The relevant facts are that the suit was fixed for final hearing on 22-9-1987. On that date, the case could not be taken up on account of the State-wide strike by the Government employees. The strike was called off on 8-10-1987 on which date, the court took up the case and fixed 21st October, 1987, on 21-10-1987, it appears that while the plaintiff's counsel was present neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared whereupon the court fixed 26-10-1987 for ex parte hearing of the suit. On 26-10-1987, the plaintiff filed his affidavit and after hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the court fixed 28-10-1987 for delivery of orders. On 28-10-1987, the suit was decreed ex parte directing the defendants to pay Rs. 5000/- as well as certain share certificates to the plaintiff/respondent subsequently, the defendants/appellants filed an application supported by an affidavit stating that they had no information of the order passed on 8-10-1987 nor of the fact that the suit would be taken up on 21-10-1987 or 26-10-1987. Consequently, they could not appear nor instruct their counsel in the suit. The court below has rejected the appellants' application on the ground that the defendants' counsel at any rate had notice of the order passed on 8-10-1987 fixing 21-10-1987. That being so, the defendants would be deemed to have had knowledge of the date fixed in the suit and consequently the mere fact that the defendants were not personally informed of the various dates would be of no avail. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the option that the order challenged in appeal is unsustainable. The suit was taken up for hearing on the very date on which the strike was called off i.e., on 8-10-1987. The defendants could obviously not anticipate that the suit would be taken up on that date. Their further assertion that their counsel had not informed that the suit would be taken up on 21-10-1987 has also remained uncontroverted. The suit was taken up for hearing on the very date on which the strike was called off i.e., on 8-10-1987. The defendants could obviously not anticipate that the suit would be taken up on that date. Their further assertion that their counsel had not informed that the suit would be taken up on 21-10-1987 has also remained uncontroverted. It is apparent, therefore, that the defendants could not possibly have appeared either on 8-10-1987 or 21-10-1987 or on the subsequent dates, as they were completely in the dark about the various dates, which were being fixed in their absence by the court. For the omission of the appellants' counsel to inform the defendants/appellants of the date fixed in the case the appellants should not be penalised. The record of the case does not reveal that the defendants/appellants were guilty of negligence or that they were deliberately delaying the disposal of the suit. The suit was filed some time in 1986. There is nothing to indicate that the defendants/appellants had obtained many adjournments on the previous occasions In this view of the matter, the court below should have taken more realistic view of the problem rather than rejected the application on the technical ground that the appellants' counsel had been informed of the date fixed in the case. Added to this was the circumstance that there was considerable confusion and uncertainty in the working of the courts during the period of strike which must be also contributed to the appellants not turning up on the date fixed in the case. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 12-04-1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Meerut is set aside. The suit is restored to its original number subject to the condition that the defendants/appellants shall deposit in court the share certificates alongwith the blank transfer deeds in question within a month from today and furnish security in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (other than Cash or Bank Guarantee). If the defendants/appellants fail to comply with these conditions, the appeal shall stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs.