JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J:- This is an appeal by the defendants/appellants (hereafter referred to as the "defendants" under Order 43 (1) (d) read with Section 104 of the code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the "Code") against the order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan whereby by application of the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the exparte decree dated 11.9.1995 in Civil Suit No. 16-N/l of 1995/1987 had been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that a Civil Suit No.30 of 1987 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No.l (hereafter referred to as the "plaintiff) against the defendants for recovery of Rs.3, 31,471-69 paise on the basis of cash credit facility in this Court. The predecessor-in- interest of respondents No.2 to 6 and respondents’ No. 7 and 8 were also impleaded as defendants in the said suit. All the defendants in the said suit were represented by Mr. K.C. Rana, Advocate. In view of the enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, the said suit was transferred by this Court to the file of the District Judge, Sirmaur where it was registered as Civil Suit No. 16- N/l of 1995/1987. In view of the transfer order, the parties were to appear in the transferee Court on 15.5.1995. The case of the defendants, however, is that Mr. K.C. Rana, Advocate, who was representing them in this Court, did not inform the defendants about the directions for appearance in the transferee Court on 15.5.1995 and the defendants, thus, could not put in appearance in the transferee Court on the due date and as a consequence, were proceeded against exparte and an exparte decree dated 11.9.1995 against the defendants followed. The defendants came to know about the exparte decree on 17.4.1996 when it was sought to be executed against them by the plaintiff. They took immediate steps in moving an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code praying for setting aside the exparte decree. The defendants came to know about the exparte decree on 17.4.1996 when it was sought to be executed against them by the plaintiff. They took immediate steps in moving an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code praying for setting aside the exparte decree. It is claimed for the defendants that though such application had been filed within time from the date of acquiring knowledge of exparte decree, yet as an abundant precaution , an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was moved along with the resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants were duly expressed before this Court by the Advocate when the transfer order was passed therefore the default in appearance as committed by the defendants on 1995 cannot be excused/condoned. 3. The learned District Judge framed the following issues:- "1. Whether there is sufficient ground to set aside the degree dated 11.9.31995 as alleged? OPA 1 Whether the delay in filing the application is excuse/condoned? OPA 2 Reliefs. 4. By the impugned order, both the issues were held against the defendants and as a consequence, the application was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 6. It is not disputed that the suit in which the exparte decree has been passed against the defendants, was initially instituted in this Court and the defendants were represented by Mr. K.C. Rana, Advocate. The suit was ordered to be transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Nahan on 10.3.1995 in the presence of Mr. K.C. Rana counsel for the defendants who were not present in person and the parties were directed to appear before the transferee Court on 15.5.1995. The defendants failed to appear before the transferee Court on the due date or thereafter when the suit was listed for hearing with the result that exparte decree was passed against the defendants. 7. The defendants claim that their absence on due date and on subsequent dates of hearing in the transferee Court was not intentional/deliberate but for the reasons that they were not intimated by Mr. K.C. Rana, Advocate about the transfer and date fixed for appearance before the transferee Court. 7. The defendants claim that their absence on due date and on subsequent dates of hearing in the transferee Court was not intentional/deliberate but for the reasons that they were not intimated by Mr. K.C. Rana, Advocate about the transfer and date fixed for appearance before the transferee Court. It is further claimed that they came to know about the circumstances leading to passing of the exparte decree against them on 17.4.1996 when the decree holder sought to execute it and immediately thereafter took steps to set aside the exparte decree after condonation of delay in moving the application in this regard. 8. The aforesaid claims of the defendants to show "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and for setting aside the exparte decree are duly supported by the unrebutted statements of AW-1 and AW-2. Even the Court below has not disbelieved their statements nor rejected their version in this regard. Thus, it is established that the absence of the defendants on due date was not deliberate or intentional but for the reason that the Advocate representing them in this Court did not inform them of the transfer of the suit and the date fixed for appearance in the transferee Court. The Court below dismissed the application on the premises that: "The defendants have not cared to know the proceedings in the suit before the Honble High Court, till the case was transferred to this Court and an exparte decree passed against the defendants. In fact, the defendants have been sleeping for 7 months even after passing of exparte decree by this Court. This clearly indicates that the defendants were proceeded exparte in the case because of their own negligence and in-action and there was no sufficient cause for their non-appearance before this Court on 15.5.1995". 9. No doubt, in the ordinary course of law the orders/directions conveyed by the Court to the counsel shall be deemed to have been conveyed to the party represented by such counsel. 9. No doubt, in the ordinary course of law the orders/directions conveyed by the Court to the counsel shall be deemed to have been conveyed to the party represented by such counsel. However, if the counsel does not convey such directions/orders to the party represented by him despite understanding between them that the party need not to appear on each date of hearing but will be intimated by the counsel about the date on which its presence may be necessary, as in this case, the interest of justice and fair play demand that such party should not suffer for want of appropriate diligence and action on the part of the counsel. 10. It should not be lost sight of that in the given circumstances a party should not be deprived of seeking justice on merits on too technical views. Instead the approach must be justice oriented and the expression "sufficient cause" must be construed liberally so as to advance the interest of justice. 11. We are, thus, of the view that in the facts and circumstances as set out heretofore, there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and also for setting aside the exparte decree. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. As a result this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code is condoned and for the same reasons the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code is also allowed and the exparte decree against the defendants is set aside subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs. 1000/- by the defendants to the plaintiff on or before the date which may be fixed for appearance of the parties before the trial Court. The suit is remitted to the trial Court for trial afresh from the stage when it was immediately before the passing of the exparte order against the defendants. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11. 1.2001. Records of the Court below be returned forthwith.