JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Appellant has come before this Court seeking the relief against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. 2. The suit brought by the Respondent No. 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,01,250/- from the Appellant was posted to 21-12-1983 for the first time for hearing. On that day, the Appellant filed a petition for adjournment on account of his illness but the application was rejected and he was directed to get ready at once. Subsequently when the suit was called for hearing, the Appellant being absent was set ex parte and the case was adjourned to 2-1-1984 on which date the Appellant did not appear. The suit was heard and decided ex parte. In the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, the Appellant pleaded illness on the date of hearing and examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved the medical certificate issued by one Dr. S.B. Rath. No witness was examined in rebuttal by the Respondent. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 on the ground that the doctor issuing the certificate was not examined and the medical certificate was not issued in presence of P.W. 1. The Appellant offered the explanation for not examining the doctor by proving a certificate to show that the doctor was himself injured in an accident and was in the City Nursing Home at Cuttack. Such certificate was also disbelieved since it did not disclose the name of the doctor who had issued it nor the doctor was examined. 4. Since the Appellant stated on oath regarding his illness and the doctor who had issued the certificate ill his favour was lying ill for which he could not be examined, it appears that the case of the Appellant of having been prevented for sufficient cause in not appearing on 21-12-1983, and having not known the next date to which the suit was posted, is more probable. There is also no reason todisbilieve the certificate showing Dr. S.B. Rath to be lying injured. 5. In that view of the matter, the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree cannot be sustained though undoubtedly the Appellant was negligent in not ascertaining the next date of hearing of the case. There is also no reason todisbilieve the certificate showing Dr. S.B. Rath to be lying injured. 5. In that view of the matter, the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree cannot be sustained though undoubtedly the Appellant was negligent in not ascertaining the next date of hearing of the case. Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the ex parte decree is set aside on condition that the Appellant pays to the Respondent No. 1 cost of Rs. 500/- within a month of receipt of the record in the trial Court. It is made clear that unless the cost is so paid, the appeal shall be taken to have been dismissed. The records be sent back forthwith. The suit being an old one, the learned Subordinate Judge shall dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of the record, from this Court. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed