JUDGMENT 1. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the defendant-non-petitioner in respect of house No.18-Ka-1 (Ground Floor) situated in (Lalkothi) Jyoti Nagar, Housing Board Scheme. 2. The suit was filed on 23.9.83. In the suit the plaintiff-petitioner prayed that after making allotment of House No. 21-K-6 (First Floor), she was asked to give option for allotment of alternate house in view of the fact that the house earlier allotted to her was to be used for allotment to the employees of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. After a lot of correspondence, the petitioner was allotted house No. 18-ka-1 (Ground Floor). The petitioner has claimed that she has fulfilled all the requirements and has a right to get possession of the house. However, the non-petitioner has raised an unlawful demand in the form of penalty. 3. The summons of the case were served on the non-petitioner as early as in January, 1984. Written statement was filed on behalf of the non-petitioner on 19.4.86. Issues were framed on 5.10.87 and the case was fixed for 8.12.87 for the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. Thereafter, the case was transferred from the court of Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur, to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur City. On 19.7.89, the case was adjourned for reply and arguments on an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under order 11 Rule-14 CPC. On 8.12.89 Shri Arjun Tolani, counsel for the non-petitioner in the trial court filed an application and sought adjournment on the ground that he has not received the file of the case. The case was adjourned to 23.2.90. On that day, none appeared on behalf of the defendant non-petitioner. The Court therefore, ordered that the case shall proceed exparte. Thereafter, the proceedings were taken on 11.5.90, 24.8.90, 12.10.90, 8.11.90, 14.11.90, 4.1.91. On 28.1.91, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was recorded and the case was fixed for arguments on 15.2.91. On 15.2.91, the arguments were heard and the case was fixed for judgment on 26.2.91. The judgment could not be dictated on 6.2.91, because, the Presiding Officer was busy in other cases. The Presiding Officer was transferred and, therefore, the case was fixed for re-hearing on 22.3.91. Time was thereafter, sought on two dates by the counsel for the petitioner to advance the arguments. The judgment could not be dictated on 6.2.91, because, the Presiding Officer was busy in other cases. The Presiding Officer was transferred and, therefore, the case was fixed for re-hearing on 22.3.91. Time was thereafter, sought on two dates by the counsel for the petitioner to advance the arguments. On 3.5.91, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 was filed on behalf of defendant-non-petitioner. The case was adjourned on account of some condolence meeting on 25.5.91. on 22.7.91 neither the defendant nor anyone else appeared on its behalf and, therefore, the application filed on 35.91. on behalf of defendant non- petitioner was dismissed. The case was thereafter, fixed for arguments. Another application was thereafter, filed on behalf of the defendant-non-petitioner on 5.10.91 for setting aside the order dated, 23.2.90 for ex parte proceedings. This application was accompanied by an affidavit of Shri Nand Lal Sharma, Assistant Housing Officer. In the application it has been stated that the Officer Incharge Shri Bhatendra Singh had been transferred and the file could not be given to the new officer Incharge till 23.2.90, because, it was lying with the previous counsel. An application for setting aside exparte proceedings was filed on 22.7.91. The officer Incharge could not appear on account of his transfer to Kota and since the case had not entered in the diary of the Lawyer, he also could not appear before the Court. The non-appearance of the defendant-non-petitioner was not intentional. A reply to this application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for opposing the request of the defendant-non-petitioner. After hearing the parties learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur, has vide his impugned order dated, 15.11.91. allowed the application filed on behalf of the defendant-non-petitioner. He has set aside the order dated 23.2.90 on payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. 4. Shri Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has forcefully argued that the learned trial court has itself come to the conclusion that the defendant-non-petitioner has been grossly negligent in the prosecution of the case. It has however, set aside the order of ex-parte proceedings only on the ground that the suit was still pending. Shri Goyal urged that the reason given by the learned Additional Civil Judge is no reason in the eye of law. It has however, set aside the order of ex-parte proceedings only on the ground that the suit was still pending. Shri Goyal urged that the reason given by the learned Additional Civil Judge is no reason in the eye of law. Learned trial court has committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while determining application under Order-9 Rule 7 CPC. Shri Goyal submitted that grave injustice will be done to the petitioner if the proceedings are reopened w.e.f. 23.2.90 in pursuance of the order dated, 15.11.91. Shri Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, argued that once the trial court has exercised its discretion of allowing the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, this court must not interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. 5. Order-9 Rule 7 provides that, where the court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance. It is, thus, clear that the court can exercise the jurisdiction of permitting the defendant to be heard in answer to the suit only if good cause is assigned by the defendant for his previous non-appearance. Existence of good cause is thus, a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. The term 'good cause' has been interpreted to be synonymous with 'sufficient cause'. In Arjun Singh v. Mahendra Kumar, AIR 1964 S.C. 993 , the Supreme Court considered the scope of Order 9 Rule 7, C.P.C. and observed; "There is no material difference between the facts to be established for satisfying the two tests of 'good cause' and "sufficient cause". There cannot be a "good cause" which is not "sufficient" as affording an explanation for non-appearance, nor conversely a 'Sufficient cause" which is not a good one and further either of these is not different from "good and sufficient cause", which is used in this context in other statutes. There cannot be a "good cause" which is not "sufficient" as affording an explanation for non-appearance, nor conversely a 'Sufficient cause" which is not a good one and further either of these is not different from "good and sufficient cause", which is used in this context in other statutes. If, on the other hand, there is any difference between the two it can only be that the requirement of a "good cause" is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause" assuming the applicability of the principle of res judicata to the decisions in the two proceedings, if the Court finds in the proceeding under O. 9 R. 7 the lighter burden not discharged, it must a fortiori bar the consideration of the same matter in the later proceeding under O. 9 R. 13 where the standard of proof of that matter is, if anything higher." 6. A perusal of the order under revision itself shows that the learned Additional Civil Judge has recorded a finding if gross negligence on the part of the defendant in prosecuting the case on its part. This finding of the learned Additional Civil Judge is fully justified having regard to the fact that neither the Officer Incharge nor the counsel had bothered to appear before the Court on 23.2.90. and, even on 22.7.91. On 22.7.91, the previous application filed on behalf of the non-petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 was rejected for non-appearance. A perusal of the application filed on behalf of the non-petitioner shows that absolutely vague and bald averments were made on behalf of the non-petitioner. It has not been disclosed in the application as to when the earlier Officer Incharge Shri Bhatendra Singh had been transferred. It has not been disclosed as to when the new Officer Incharge, contacted the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the Board earlier. It has not been shown as to when the subsequent counsel received file. It has not been shown as to when the succeeding Officer Incharge was appointed. Total absence of these material particulars goes to show that the defendant non-petitioner did not want the court to make a pointed probe on the question of bona fide of the non-petitioner in making application under Order-9 Rule 7. It has not been shown as to when the succeeding Officer Incharge was appointed. Total absence of these material particulars goes to show that the defendant non-petitioner did not want the court to make a pointed probe on the question of bona fide of the non-petitioner in making application under Order-9 Rule 7. Moreover, negligence in the prosecution of the case on the part of the defendant-non-petitioner is by itself anti-thesis of 'good cause' contemplated by Order 9 Rule-7 C.P.C. Learned Additional Civil Judge has committed a serious illegality in accepting the application filed by the non-petitioner. This order has caused substantial and grave injustice to the petitioner because, after the period of over one year and 9 months of the proceedings, the case will restart from the stage of evidence of the plaintiff. It cannot be ignored that the Presiding Officer of the Court, though, earlier heard arguments and had fixed the case for dictation of order, but on account of his being busy with other cases, he did not dictate the order. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer the agony of prolonged litigation on account of negligence on the part of the non-petitioner. Thus, in my opinion, it is a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 C.P.C. 7. The revision petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The order dated 15.11.91 is quashed and the application filed on behalf of the non-petitioner is dismissed. The non-petitioner shall however, be entitled to make oral submissions at the time of hearing before the trial court. 8. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Revision allowed. *******