JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Appeal No. 482/97. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.1997, passed in M.J.C. No. 31/96 and M.J.C. No. 32/96, the appellant has preferred Misc. Appeal Nos. 481/97 and 482/97. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the appellant's application for setting aside ex-park decree and for restoration of his claim for divorce. He submits that the appellant's mother was unwell from 21st July, 1996, therefore, he could not appear when the case was called on for hearing, but when he reached the Court at about 1 p.m., met his Counsel, then only he came to know that the matter has been proceeded ex-parte before 1 p.m. According to the appellant, the Trial Court was unjustified in proceeding ex-parte in the first part of the day and secondly was also not justified in rejecting the application when it is proved on record that the did come to the Court on 23rd July. He submits that if the appellant on priority basis attended his mother, he should not be penalised for remaining absent in the Court. 4. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that neither there was a sufficient cause in favour of the appellant nor the appellant could prove that the mother was unwell. He submits that the Court below was justified in rejecting the applications. 5. I have heard the parties at length. 6. Rajinder Singh, present appellant, has been examined as witness No. 1. He has clearly stated that his mother was unwell since 21st July, 1996 and he was attending her. According to him, he came to the Court on 23rd July at about 1 p.m., he met his Counsel Mr. Tiwari who was coming from the High Court and when he enquired in the Court, he found that the matter was proceeded ex-parte. In his statement, he has clearly stated that if his mother was not unwell, he would have come to the Court right in time. In support of his application and statement, he has filed a medical certificate, issued by Dr. Chawla. In the cross-examination he was suggested that the medical certificate was obtained lateron and he has not examined the Doctor. He was suggested that the medical certificate was concected. In support of his application and statement, he has filed a medical certificate, issued by Dr. Chawla. In the cross-examination he was suggested that the medical certificate was obtained lateron and he has not examined the Doctor. He was suggested that the medical certificate was concected. Suresh Kesharwani has also been examined as a witness in support of the appellant. He has stated that the appellant's mother was unwell and the appellant had called the witness to attend the mother as the appellant was to attend the Court proceedings. He has clearly stated that be attend the ailing mother. In the cross-examination or these two witnesses, nothing could he brought to show that either they were telling lies or the mother was not unwell. The respondent has been examined as a witness and has clearly admitted that the present appellant came to the Court at about 1/1.30 p.m. This clearly supports the contention of the appellant that he was in the Court at about 1/1.30 p.m. A Court should not be hypertechnical in such matters. The provisions of Order 9 are to be liberally construed as these are not enacted for imposing penalty or awarding punishment. If the husband considers that attending the ailing mother was to be given priority in comparison to entering into litigation with the wife, no fault can be found with him because the law nowhere provides that even at the cost of the ailing mother, one must attend the Court. When the law provides that an ex-parte decree can be set aside on proof of sufficiency of the cause, then the Court must be liberal. The Court below was not justified in observing that the appellant should have made arrangements for sending the information to the Counsel who was to appear for him. The appellant has clearly stated that he had come to the Court at about 1 p.m. and he found his Counsel coming from High Court. If these facts are read in juxta position, it would show that the appellant was really keen to attend the Court proceedings and for that only reason, he came to the Court. 7. The Court below was unjustified in rejecting the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code and Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. 8. The appeals deserve to and are accordingly allowed. 7. The Court below was unjustified in rejecting the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code and Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. 8. The appeals deserve to and are accordingly allowed. The ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights is set aside. Similarly, dismissal of appellant's counter claim seeking the divorce is also set aside and the proceedings are restored back. The Trial Court is directed to restore the suit to its original number and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 9. The parties are directed to remain present before the Trial Court on 2nd March, 1998. As the matter had already reached the stage of evidence, it is expected of the parties that without loss of time they would produce their evidence, enabling the Trial Court to decide the matter at its earliest. 10. The appeals are allowed. No costs.