Honble SHARMA, J. – This revision arises from the order dated 7.9.1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer whereby the application filed by the defendant petitioner (for short the defendant) u/O. 9 R. 7 CPC for setting aside ex-parte proceedings was rejected and a cost of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. (2). The plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for evi- ction against the defendant in the month of August 1994. Summons was served upon the then president of the defendant but he made a report that he was no more a President. The learned trial Court vide order dated 6.9.1994 directed to effect service by affixing the summons at the institution. On 23.9.1994 the learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant on the ground that process server was prevented from affixing the summons. Application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings was moved by the defendant through its Secretary Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta but it was dismissed on 2.2.1996 on the ground that Radhey Shyam Gupta died on 21.6.1995. Second application was moved by the defendant but it was also dismissed on 16.8.1996. Yet another application was moved by the defendant but it was also dismissed by the impugned order. (3). After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after careful scrutiny of record I am of the view that provisions of O. 9 R. 7 CPC ought to have been liberally construed by the learned trial Court. The defendant is a registered institution and if its Secretary Radhey Shyam Gupta died after filing of the applica- tion u/O. 9 R. 7 CPC this could not have been the ground for dismissing the appli- cation as the defendant institution was very much in existence. In Ram Pal vs. Jagrup (1), P & H High Court propounded this principle as under :– ``It has been now repeatedly held that a fair trial should not be denied to a party even if it is found that his failure to appear on some date was because of negligence on his part. The Supreme Court has also ruled the words ``sufficient cause have to be very liberally construed and for any negligence, the other party can be well compensated with costs. (4). In order to do substantial justice to the parties I am of the view that an opportunity be provided to the defendant to contest the suit. The Supreme Court has also ruled the words ``sufficient cause have to be very liberally construed and for any negligence, the other party can be well compensated with costs. (4). In order to do substantial justice to the parties I am of the view that an opportunity be provided to the defendant to contest the suit. The Court below did not examine this as per in the right perspective and on the basis of technicalities, the application, aspect substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, it is the duty of the Court to decide the matter in order to impart substantial justice to the parties. In dismissing the application u/O. 9 R. 7 CPC, the learned trial Court has committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it and if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice. (5). Consequently I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. I set the clock back and allow the defendant to take part in the proceedings of the civil suit from the stage where he was proceeded ex-parte. The defendant shall pay cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the plaintiff. The record of the case be sent forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.7.1997. In the circumstances of the case the trial Court is expected to adjudicate the civil suit pending before it within one year from the date of receipt of this order.