JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - This is revision against the order dated 16.10.1986 of District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby he had dismissed the appeal of the gram panchayat of village Sarswati Khera against Ram Kishan etc. from the order of Sub Judge First Class, Kaithal dismissing the application of the gram panchayat for the setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 2.12.1983 in civil suit No. 296 of 1983 titled Ram Kishan and others v. Gram Panchayat for permanent injunction. 2. Ram Kishan and others filed suit No. 296 of 1983 against gram panchayat of village Sarswati Khera for permanent injunction restraining it from interfering with their possession on baras in suit situated outside the abadi deh of village Sarswati Khera but inside the revenue estate of village Sarswati Khera. Ex parte stay was granted to the plaintiffs. Gram Panchayat passed resolution No. 1 dated 17.5.1983 authorising Man Singh to get the stay vacated. Man Singh engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal and Shri M.K. Mangal, Advocates who moved application for vacation of stay on 15.6.1983, the Court passed consent order ordering the maintaining of status quo with regard to possession. Case was adjourned to 8.8.1983 for written statement. On the said date written statement was not ready. Case was adjourned to 29.8.1983. Written statement was again not ready. Case was adjourned to 26.9.1983 on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs. On 26.9.1983 again, neither written statement was filed nor cost was paid. Shri M.K. Mangal, counsel for the gram panchayat made statement pleading no instructions on behalf of the gram panchayat saying that the gram panchayat had taken away the brief of the case from him. Case was adjourned to 3.11.1983 and so on. On 2.12.1983, ex parte evidence was recorded and ex parte decree was passed. 3. On 5.4.1984, an application was made for the setting aside of the ex parte decree pleading that Man Singh and requested his counsel Shri Y.K. Mangal that he should inform him whenever his personal presence was required and Shri Y.K. Mangal accepted his request and told him that whenever his personal presence was required, he would be intimated through his Clerk. It was alleged in that application that no letter was received by Man Singh either from his counsel or his clerk. It was alleged in that application that no letter was received by Man Singh either from his counsel or his clerk. It was also mentioned that one Sita Ram of their village had also instituted suit against the gram panchayat in respect of the same land in which the gram panchayat had also engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal as their counsel. Some order was passed in that suit by the Court against the Panchayat. Appeal against that order was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in which Hem Chand Gupta was its counsel who had asked for the briefs of the lower Court and he (Man Singh), accordingly took away the briefs i.e. the brief of this case as well from Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate. As such Shri Y.K. Mangal could not appear in Court and the ex parte proceedings were taken and eventually, ex parte decree was passed. On 5.4.1984 when the appllicant came to Kaithal, he came to know regarding the ex parte proceedings. On inquiry made by him from Shri Amar Chand Bhalla Clerk to Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate, he came to know of the ex parte proceedings and as such application was within time. Ram Kishan etc. contested this application. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the impugned ex parte decree dated 2.12.1984 is liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned in Para No. 2 of the application ? OPA 2. Whether the application is within time ? OPA 3. Relief. 4. Vide order dated 14.3.1986, Sub Judge First Class, Kaithal dismissed this application and refused to set aside the ex parte decree in view of his finding that there was no sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree. Application was found to be time barred also. 5. Not satisfied with this order dated 14.3.1986, gram panchayat went in appeal. Vide order dated 16.10.1986, District Judge, Kurukshetra dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, gram panchayat has come up in revision to this Court. I had heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the gram panchayat that in suit titled Ram Kishan etc. v. Gram Panchayat, the gram panchayat was represented by Shri Man Singh. He had engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal and Shri M.K. Mangal, Advocates. I had heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the gram panchayat that in suit titled Ram Kishan etc. v. Gram Panchayat, the gram panchayat was represented by Shri Man Singh. He had engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal and Shri M.K. Mangal, Advocates. Shri Man Singh had requested Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate that he should inform him whenever his personal presence was required. Shri Y.K. Mangal told him that whenever his personal presence was required, he would be intimated through his clerk. It was submitted that he was not informed either by Shri Y.K. Mangal or by his clerk. It was also submitted that one Sita Ram son of Ram Kishan had also instituted suit against the gram panchayat in respect of the same baras. Gram Panchayat had engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate as its counsel in that case also. Some order was passed in that case. Appeal was filed against that order which was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Shri Hem Chand Gupta, Advocate was counsel for the gram panchayat in that appeal. He had asked for the brief of the lower Court. Shri Man Singh took away the brief of this case from Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate. As such, Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate could not appear in the Court and ex parte proceedings were taken which culminated into ex parte decree. It was submitted that instead of writing any letter or sending intimation to Man Singh, Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate pleaded no instructions. Neither Shri Y.K. Mangal nor his clerk Shri Amar Chand Bhalla sent him any message that his personal attendance was required. It was submitted that this version of Man Singh stands supported by the statements of Shri Amar Chand Bhalla, Mohan Singh and Laxmi Chand clerk of Shri Hem Chand Gupta, Advocate. It was submitted that Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate knew that the brief of case Ram Kishan etc. v. Gram Panchayat had been taken away by Shri Man Singh with a view to its being seen by Shri Hem Chand Gupta, Advocate who was counsel for the gram panchayat in appeal filed by the gram panchayat in suit titled Sita Ram etc. v. Gram Panchayat had been taken away by Shri Man Singh with a view to its being seen by Shri Hem Chand Gupta, Advocate who was counsel for the gram panchayat in appeal filed by the gram panchayat in suit titled Sita Ram etc. v. Gram Panchayat.ex parte proceedings against the gram panchayat but should have issued notice to the gram panchayat calling upon the gram panchayat to appear in the case and take necessary steps and arrange some counsel for it. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh and another, JT 1997(9) SC 642 where it was held that where the appellants counsel had pleaded to instructions and consequently the case was decided ex parte, Court should not have proceeded ex parte against the appellant, instead notice should have been issued to the appellant who was admittedly not present on the date. Appellant cannot be said to be at fault. In this case, Malkiat Singh etc. appellants had been tried for the murder of Harpal Singh and on conviction, they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On 16.8.1989, the respondents filed suit claiming damages from the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1 lac in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Samrala. Claim in the suit was contested by the appellants. They filed written statement and engaged counsel to defend the suit. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed a number of issues. After two witnesses of the plaintiffs in that case had been examined and cross-examined, it transpired that on 18.11.1991, counsel who had been engaged by the appellants for defending them in the suit pleaded no instructions before the Court. As a result of the counsel not pleading any instructions, the appellants were proceeded ex parte. On 8.2.1992, the learned trial Court passed an ex parte decree against the appellants. Appellants went to inquire about the proceedings in the case from their counsel on 6.6.1992. On their inquiry, their counsel informed them that he had pleaded no instructions, as a result of which they were proceeded ex parte and the suit had been decreed ex parte on 8.2.1992. Appellants went to inquire about the proceedings in the case from their counsel on 6.6.1992. On their inquiry, their counsel informed them that he had pleaded no instructions, as a result of which they were proceeded ex parte and the suit had been decreed ex parte on 8.2.1992. Appellants filed application on 10.6.1992 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for the setting aside of the ex parte order dated 18.11.1995 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 8.2.1992. Honble Supreme Court held that the appellants were neither careless nor negligent in defending the suit. They had engaged a counsel and were following the proceedings. In this fact situation, the trial Court which had admittedly not issued any notice to the appellants after their counsel had reported no instructions, should have, in the interest of justice allowed that application and proceeded in the case from the stage when the counsel reported no instructions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants could not be said to be at fault and they should not suffer. For this view the Honble Supreme Court relied upon Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and another, 1993(Supp.) 3 SCC 256, wherein the Bench opined : "It is not disputed in the present case that on March 15, 1974 when Mr. Adhia, advocate withdraw from the case, the petitioners were not present in Court. There is nothing on the record to show as to whether the petitioners had the notice of the hearing of the case on that day. We are of the view, when Mr. Adhia withdrew from the case, the interests of justice required, that a fresh notice for actual date hearing should have been sent to the parties. In any case in the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that the party in person was not at fault and as much should not be made to suffer." 7. It was submitted that the negligence on the part of Shri M.K. Mangal, Advocate, who had pleaded no instructions on behalf of the gram panchayat and allowed gram panchayat to be proceeded against ex parte, should not recoil upon the gram panchayat and the ex parte decree should be set aside. It was submitted that the negligence on the part of Shri M.K. Mangal, Advocate, who had pleaded no instructions on behalf of the gram panchayat and allowed gram panchayat to be proceeded against ex parte, should not recoil upon the gram panchayat and the ex parte decree should be set aside. "Where the defendant employs a counsel for the purpose of his appearance in the Court and he neglects, his neglect would constitute a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant. After all, the litigants rely upon the counsel for appearance on each date of hearing." was the view taken in Shyam Lal Dhar v. M/s Ply Board Industries, AIR 1981 J&K 95 by a Full Bench of the J&K High Court. Same view as taken by Honble Supreme Court in case Udayan Chinubhai v. R.C. Bali, AIR 1977 SC 2319 where the Honble Supreme Court held as under : "Even otherwise, in the entire circumstances of the case disclosing sheer indifference, perhaps negligence on the part of the Advocate, Shri Bhartinder Singh and no laches, whatever, on the part of the appellant, we would have been inclined to condone the delay of 12 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act." 8. In my opinion, the Court should have given notice to the gram panchayat after its counsel Shri M.K. Mangal had pleaded no instructions and stated that he did not wish to appear for the gram panchayat thus paving the way for ex parte proceedings being taken against the gram panchayat, more so, when in this case, Man Singh had stated about the circumstances why he could not appear on 26.9.1983 before the Court. Gram Panchayat is a public body. Shri M.K. Mangal should have stated before the Court that the brief of the case was not with him as it had been taken away from him by Shri Man Singh because it was Shri Hem Chand Gupta, Advocate, who was representing the gram panchayat in another case titled Sita Ram v. Gram Panchayat with regard to the same baras. 9. Application for setting aside decree was made on 5.4.1984. Ex parte decree was passed on 2.12.1983. Application for setting aside ex parte decree could be made either within 30 days of 2.12.1983 or within 30 days when the fact of ex parte decree came to be known to the applicant. 9. Application for setting aside decree was made on 5.4.1984. Ex parte decree was passed on 2.12.1983. Application for setting aside ex parte decree could be made either within 30 days of 2.12.1983 or within 30 days when the fact of ex parte decree came to be known to the applicant. Ex parte proceedings were taken on 26.9.1983. Brief of the case was taken to Shri Hem Chand Gupta, Advocate in the appeal filed against Sita Ram by the gram panchayat. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the final order passed in the appeal. Appeal was filed on 17.6.1983. It was finally disposed of on 3.10.1983. Learned trial Court felt that there was no ground for the applicant not to collect the brief of the case after the dismissal of the case on 3.10.1983 and there was no reason why the applicant could not come to Kaithal earlier to 5.4.1984. As has been stated above, the applicant got no intimation from Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate or his clerk that he should appear on such and such date as his personal presence was required and also no intimation was given to the applicant by Shri M.K. Mangal that the should come to him with the brief of the case. Applicant could not know what was happening in the case. Even otherwise, if the representative of the gram panchayat did not take proper interest in defending the suit filed against the gram panchayat, the gram panchayat should not suffer. Rules of procedure are mere hand-mades (hand-maids ?) of justice. At the altar of procedure, substantive justice should not be sacrificed. Interpretation of the words "sufficient cause" used in Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which reads as follows :- "In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit," should be liberal. If the defendant advances some cause for setting aside ex parte decree which does not seem to be false or frivolous, it should be accepted and ex parte decree set aside. There was no delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decree. If there was any delay, in the interest of justice, the same should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It would bear repetition that the gram panchayat should not suffer merely because there was negligence on the part of its representative or its counsel. For the reasons given above, the ex parte decree is set aside as also the proceedings which culminated in the ex parte decree, on payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. Revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed.