JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This is the defendant's appeal against the order of dismissal of his application of his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 2. It appears that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 9.3.1987 was filed against defendant-appellant in which 15th February, 1989 was fixed. On that date defendant absented himself and the suit was decreed ex parte .Subsequently on 17th February, 1989 he moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was supported by an affidavit and also a medical certificate dated 17th February, 1989. 3. The application was rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that while, according to the applicant, he had come to the Court on 15th February, 1989 on recovering from illness and then came to know about the decreeing of suit ex parte. On the other hand in the medical certificate it is mentioned that the defendant was ill from 7th February ary, 1989 to 15th February 1989. The trial Court took the view that the stand taken by the defendant was incorrect that he was ill on 15th February, 1989. Shri A.N. Bhargava learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Court below had taken too technical view of the medical certificate and has not recorded any finding that either the medical certificate was wrong or his affidavit was incorrect. The Court should have taken a lenient view of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that 15th February was the last date on which, according to the medical practitioner, the defendant was ill. It is obvious that by the time the appellant must have recovered sufficiently to be in a position to move about. The certificate does not say that he was unable to move from his bed during the entire period of his illness. It is also noticeable that a person concerned in a case generally will try to make inquiry to know the fate of the case at the earliest opportunity. In these circumstances it would not be unusual if the appellant came to the Court on 15.2.1989 in order to find out the fate of his case which was fixed for 7th Feb., 1989. Apart from the above we find that the suit is for the specific performance of contract. In these circumstances it would not be unusual if the appellant came to the Court on 15.2.1989 in order to find out the fate of his case which was fixed for 7th Feb., 1989. Apart from the above we find that the suit is for the specific performance of contract. IN case the ex parte decree allowed to stand serious harm is likely to be caused to the appellant. The general principle is that a party should be allowed to be heard in the cause and the hearing should not be shut out. 5. In view of the above we allow the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the Court below and allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on payment of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) as cost. The amount of cost will be paid to the plaintiff-respondents within a period of four weeks from to-day. In case the payment of rest it not made within the above period of appeal shall stand dismissed. As a matter is pending since 1987 the trial Court will make efforts to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 6. Certified copies of the order may be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within one week.