JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J.—All the three appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 3rd September, 1999 in OMPs 81 to 84 of 1999, 206 and 207 of 1999 in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1998. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals may now be briefly Stated. 3. Smt. Savitri Devi respondent No. 1 in OSA No. 26 of 1999 was the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1998. She filed that suit against four defendants (appellant of OSA No. 26 of 1999, appellants of OSA No. 16 of 2000 and appellant of OSA No. 17 of 2000). It was the case of the plaintiff that she belonged to village Bharmour where she had having her property. Her husband was M.L.A. from Bharmour who enjoyed good reputation in the surrounding area. The plaintiff possessed educational qualifications of B,A., B,Ed and by virtue of those qualifications she was appointed in Education Department. At the relevant time she was working as Project Officer, Adult Education at Chamba. Before her husband was elected as M.L.A., he was holding the post of Chairman Block Development Committee since 1982. He also held the post of Chief Parliamentary Secretary in December, 1989. According to her all the four defendants falsely and deliberately with a view to adversely affect the reputation of the plaintiff published an article in a periodical, Chamba News Weekly -in its issue dated 22nd to 28th September, 1997 and again in an issue dated 1st of November to 7th of November, 1997 making false allegations against the plaintiff. Those allegations were made against the plaintiff intentionally, with a view to defame her and tarnish her prestige and reputation in the society. Defendant No. 1 published that article at the behest of defendant No. 2 who was President of the Gram Panchayat Bharmour, defendant No. 3 Vice President of Gram Panchayat Bharmour and defendant No. 4 President of Gram Panchayat Sachuin, Tehsil Bharmour. All of them were therefore, liable to pay damages of Rs. 10 lacs. 4. Notices were issued to all the defendants. It was the case of the plaintiff that though the summons was duly served upon defendant No. 1 he did not appear at the time of hearing of the suit nor he engaged an Advocate. Defendants No. 2 to 4 were served with summonses and they appeared. 10 lacs. 4. Notices were issued to all the defendants. It was the case of the plaintiff that though the summons was duly served upon defendant No. 1 he did not appear at the time of hearing of the suit nor he engaged an Advocate. Defendants No. 2 to 4 were served with summonses and they appeared. They engaged an Advocate who was representing them. On October 26, 1998, their Advocate was present but no written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 4. One more opportunity was given on condition of payment of cost of Rs. 500 by the Court. It was made clear by the Court that if written statement would not be filed within the stipulated period, the defendants would be liable to be dealt with under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). On the next date, i.e. November 27, 1998, learned Advocate who was appearing on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 made a statement that he had no instructions in the matter. It is also clear from the record that defendant No. 1 was ordered to be proceeded ex parte as he did not put in appearance despite service of summons. Such order was passed by the Registrar (Vigilance) on May 22, 1998. The Court in the circumstances, directed that the statement of plaintiff be recorded who was present in the Court. Accordingly, her evidence was recorded, the Court proceeded to hear the matter and pronounced the judgment on December 18, 1998. Paragraph 11 of the judgment reads as under:— "For the aforesaid reasons, an ex-parte decree is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the recovery of Rs. 10.00 lacs by way of damages alongwith costs of the suit. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly." 5. It was the case of the appellants that they were not aware of the proceedings and a decree passed against them was, hence, illegal and unlawful. They, therefore, filed applications being OMP No. 81 of 1999 (by defendant No. 1), OMP No. 83 of 1999 (by defendant No. 2) and OMP No. 206 of 1999 (by defendants No. 3 and 4) under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex-parte decree. They, therefore, filed applications being OMP No. 81 of 1999 (by defendant No. 1), OMP No. 83 of 1999 (by defendant No. 2) and OMP No. 206 of 1999 (by defendants No. 3 and 4) under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex-parte decree. They also filed three applications being OMPs No, 82 of 1999, 84 of 1999 and 207 of 1999 for stay of execution of the decree. 6. The case of defendant No. 1 was that he was never served with a summons and hence, no proceedings could have .been continued against him nor an ex-parte decree could have been passed. The decree passed by the trial Court thus suffered from illegality and was liable to be set aside, 7. So far as defendants 2 to 4 are concerned, it is an admitted fact that summonses were served upon them and they had engaged an Advocate. It was, however, submitted that because of the .circumstances mentioned in the applications, they could not remain present. Moreover, when the Advocate appearing for them made a statement before the Court that he had no instructions, the Court ought not to have proceeded ex-parte against them and it ought to have issued notice to defendants 2 to 4. Since no such notices were issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them, ex parte decree was illegal and liable to be set aside. The applications were contested by the plaintiff. Replies were filed to all the applications. Regarding defendant No.1, it was urged that he was duly served with the summons and was aware of the proceedings. It was stated that the necessary materials were placed on record to show that defendant No. 1 was duly served. It was also the contention of the plaintiff that reading a News item, it was clear that defendant No. 1 was aware of the proceedings, pending before a competent Court. As there was default on his part in not remaining present, he had no right to make grievance and no illegality can be said to, have been committed by the Court in passing ex parte decree against him. . 8. Regarding defendants No. 2 to 4, it was contended that they were served with summonses, and thus, they were very much present before the Court. . 8. Regarding defendants No. 2 to 4, it was contended that they were served with summonses, and thus, they were very much present before the Court. Moreover, they had engaged an Advocate and if, the said Advocate did not proceed with the matter on the ground that he had no instructions, it was open to the court in absence of written statement by the defendants to proceed against them. The court accordingly proceeded with the case and passed a decree which cannot be said to be unlawful or contrary to law. It was, therefore, submitted that the applications were without substance and were liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned Single Judge, dismissed all the applications observing that there was no merit therein. The said order is challenged in present appeals by the defendants. 10. We have heard Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Suresh Bhardwaj, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants in all the appeals and Mr. D.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Ms. Pratima Malhotra, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents. 11. It was submitted by Mr. Verma, that relevant and germane considerations which ought to have been taken into account by the trial court were not considered and irrelevant materials have been kept in mind. According to the learned Counsel, application of defendant No. 1 ought to have been allowed on the ground that he was never served with summons along with a copy of the plaint and hence provisions of Order 5 of the Code had not been complied with. Regarding defendants 2 to 4, he stated that, no doubt, those defendants were served with summons, and they had engaged an Advocate but when the said Advocate made a statement that he had no instructions, it was obligatory on the part of the trial court to issue notices to the parties so as to enable them to appear and avail of ah opportunity of hearing and only thereafter appropriate order could have been passed. He, therefore, submitted that against none of the defendants ex parte decree could have been passed by the Court. He, therefore, submitted that against none of the defendants ex parte decree could have been passed by the Court. Finally, it was submitted that even if, it is assumed, for the sake of argument that defendant No. 1 was served with summons and defendants No. 2 to 4 though represented by an Advocate, were not present, as soon as they came to know about passing of ex parte decree passed against them, they had applied for setting aside such ex parte decree. Considering the facts and circumstances and-interpreting the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13, liberally in the larger interest of justice, all applications ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. By dismissing the applications, the learned Single Judge has committed an error of fact as well as of law. He, therefore, submitted that all the appeals deserve to be allowed by setting aside ex parte decree passed by the learned Single Judge by remanding the matter to the trial Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 12. Mr. D.D. Sood, for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Two preliminary contentions were raised by the learned Counsel; namely ; (i) applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed; and (ii) OSAs are not maintainable against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. On merits, it was submitted that no case was made out by any of the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge considered the case put forth in all the applications and since he was not satisfied that any ground under Order 9, Rule 13 was made out, he dismissed the applications and no fault can be found against the said order. All the appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 14. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion all the appeals deserve to be allowed. So far as the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff are concerned, we are unable to uphold them. We are not able to appreciate the contention as to how the applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex parte decree were not maintainable. It was submitted by Mr. So far as the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff are concerned, we are unable to uphold them. We are not able to appreciate the contention as to how the applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex parte decree were not maintainable. It was submitted by Mr. Sood that the decree passed in the instant case cannot be termed as ex parte decree inasmuch as defendant No. 1 though was served did not remain present nor he filed any written statement. Likewise, defendants 2 to 4 were duly served and were represented by counsel but in spite of the directions issued by the Court to file written statement, they failed to do so and accordingly an action was taken. A decree was passed in such circumstances, in the submission of Mr. Sood, cannot be termed as exparte decree. It was a decree simpliciter and was open to challenge under Section 96 of the Code by filing a Regular appeal. In the alternative, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was subject to appeal under Clause (d) of Rule 1 of Order 43 of the Code. The said clause enables a party to file an appeal against an order passed under Rule 13, of Order 9 rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for setting aside a decree passed ex parte. 15. We see no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel. So far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, as stated above, as per the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, he was served with the summons. Admittedly, he was not present. In these circumstance, the decree passed against him was indeed an ex parte decree. 16. Similarly, defendants No. 2 to 4 were served with summon^ and they were represented by an Advocate. It is undisputed that the learned Counsel appearing on their behalf made a statement; that he had no instructions and thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter and a decree was passed. Even according to the learned Single Judge, it was an ex parte decree, and hence applications under Order 9, Rule 13 were maintainable. 17. The next question is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to set aside ex parte decree passed against the defendants. 18. Even according to the learned Single Judge, it was an ex parte decree, and hence applications under Order 9, Rule 13 were maintainable. 17. The next question is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to set aside ex parte decree passed against the defendants. 18. Now, Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code provides for setting aside ex parte decree against defendant in certain circumstances. 19. The material part of the said Rule reads thus:— "13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant.—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: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also....." 20. In the instant case certain facts are not in dispute. Defendant No. 1 was not present in the Court nor he was represented by a counsel. It is, no doubt, contended on behalf of the respondent and a finding was recorded by the trial Court in ex parte judgment as well as in an order impugned in the present appeals that defendant No. 1 was duly served but in view of the fact that he was not present nor had engaged a counsel, the order was passed without hearing him. 21. So far as the defendants 2 to 4 are concerned, no doubt, they were served with summonses. It is equally true that they were represented by an Advocate but it is also borne out from the record that on the date of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for them had made a statement that he had no instructions in the matter. In our opinion, in this circumstance, submission of Mr. It is equally true that they were represented by an Advocate but it is also borne out from the record that on the date of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for them had made a statement that he had no instructions in the matter. In our opinion, in this circumstance, submission of Mr. Verma is well founded that the Court ought not to have proceeded with the matter, instead, it ought to have issued notices to the defendants. Similar course was adopted by the Supreme Court in (1998) 2 SCC 206, Malkiat Singh ad another v. Joginder Singh and others, (1998) 2 SCX>206 and Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and another, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 256. 22. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that the connotation "sufficient cause” has to be construed liberally. It is not necessary, for us, to refer to several decisions cited by both the parties at the Bar in support of their rival contentions. It is however settled law that the expression "sufficient cause which has not been defined in the Code has to be construed liberally to enable the Court to exercise the said power ex debito justiae. Ordinarily, the Court would not adopt the said course unless the court is satisfied that there is inaction, gross negligence or abuse of process on the part of the defendants. If relevant material is placed on record which would go to show that the defendants had taken care for appearing before the Court but there were circumstances due to which they could not appear, then the court will not take strict view and by showing magnanimity, it will set aside such ex parte decree, allow the party to appear and contest the matter and decide it on merits after hearing the parties. The apex Court has held that no doubt, making out a case of "sufficient cause" is a necessary requirement of law for setting aside ex parte decree. But if non-appearance by the defendant is not intentional or mala fide, the court would exercise the discretion by construing the connotation, "sufficient cause" liberally and set aside the ex parte decree by allowing. the defendant to appear and contest: the suit. 23. But if non-appearance by the defendant is not intentional or mala fide, the court would exercise the discretion by construing the connotation, "sufficient cause" liberally and set aside the ex parte decree by allowing. the defendant to appear and contest: the suit. 23. Mr.Verma also drew our attention to paragraph 6 of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein it has been observed as under:— "6 On the next date i.e. 27.11.1998 Shri Suresh Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the defendants gave a statement that he had no instructions in the matter. It was in these circumstances that while exercising powers under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC, this Court directed that the statement of the plaintiff be recorded, she being present in person. After the same was recorded, the learned Counsel for the parties were heard and judgment was reserved by this Court, which was ultimately pronounced on December 18, 1998 whereby the aforementioned decree has been passed," (Emphasis supplied) 24. The counsel submitted that the above statement is not fully correct, inasmuch as, the learned Advocate for the defendant was not heard, inasmuch as, defendant No. 1 was not represented by an Advocate and a counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 4 made a statement at the Bar that he had no instructions in the matter. Thus, it could not be said that "learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the judgment was reserved." 25. In our opinion, therefore, the case is fully covered by the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code and the applications filed by the appellants before the triad Court ought to have been allowed by setting aside ex parte decree and by proceeding with the suit afresh on its own merits. 26. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in OMPs 81 to 84 and 206 of 1999 is hereby quashed and ex parte decree passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1998 is hereby set aside. The matter will now go before the learned Single Judge who will decide the suit in accordance with law. 27. The matter will now go before the learned Single Judge who will decide the suit in accordance with law. 27. We may clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and as and when the suit will be taken up for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by the observation made herein-before. In the circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if each appellant will pay an amount of Rs. 1,000 to the plaintiff within a period of six weeks from today. The Registry will place the matter before the Registrar (Vigilance) within six weeks on which date the appellants-defendants will pay the amount of costs. They will also file written statement within two weeks thereafter i.e. eight weeks from today. Order accordingly. Appeals allowed.