Judgment :- 1. These revisions are directed against the common judgment dated 30th November, 2001 of the First Additional District Judge, Kollam in CMA Nos. 745 and 746 of 2001. The revision petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 720/98 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam and the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 734/98. The suit, O.S. No. 720/98 was dismissed for default and O.S. No. 734/98 was decreed ex parte. The petitioner moved I.A. No. 493/01 for restoration of the suit under O. IX, R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 734/98 under O. IX, R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the applications were heard together and by a common order, dated 16th October, 2001 the learned Additional Munsiff dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the common order the petitioner preferred CMA Nos. 745 and 746/01 before the District Judge, Kollam and the 1st Additional District Judge, Kollam, by the impugned common judgment dismissed both the appeals. 2. The suits, O.S. Nos. 720 and 734/98, were ordered to be tried jointly and the suits were listed for trial on 5th January 2001. On that day the petitioner could not appear before the court since he was laid up. The trial court adjourned the case to 12th January 2001. Since the petitioner was absent on that day O.S. No. 720/98 was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner and O.S. No. 734/98 was decreed ex parte. According to the petitioner, on 5th January, 2001 when the suits were posted for trial in the special list, he could not appeal before the court and adduce evidence as he was suffering from pneumonia and admitted in the Lekshmi Clinic, Paravoor. He was discharged from the hospital only on 13th January 2001 and, therefore, he could not give instructions to his lawyer. 3. The question for consideration is whether there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the petitioner before the court on 12th January, 2001. According to the petitioner, there was no wilful negligence on his part and he could not appear before the court due to his illness. The petitioner gave evidence as PW1 and Ext. Al Medical Certificate was also marked. According to the petitioner, there was no wilful negligence on his part and he could not appear before the court due to his illness. The petitioner gave evidence as PW1 and Ext. Al Medical Certificate was also marked. On a consideration of the materials on record, the courts below have concurrently found that there was no sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the petitioner. I find it very difficult to agree with the views expressed by the Courts below. It is true that the Doctor, who issued Ext. Al was not examined in the case. But, according to me, the reasons given by the lower courts for discarding the evidence of PW1 and Ext. Al are no reasons at all. PW1 has asserted in his evidence that during the relevant time he was admitted in the Lekshmi Clinic at Paravoor as Dr. Haneefa attached to the Hospital was his Doctor. 4. The learned Additional District Judge was not inclined to accept the version of the petitioner for two reasons. According to the learned judge, though the petitioner has stated that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 750 for treatment, he did not produce any document to show that the said amount was paid by the petitioner in the hospital. Another reason given by the District Judge is that when there are several hospitals near to his house, it was quite improbable that he went to the Lekshmi Clinic, Paravoor, for treatment. Because of the failure of the petitioner to produce the bill from the hospital it cannot be said that he was not treated in the hospital during the relevant time. The choice of undergoing treatment at a Hospital or under a Doctor would normally be based on the confidence that the patient reposes on them. Merely because the patient has chosen to undergo treatment at a hospital further away from his residence in preference to nearby hospital, it cannot be said that the allegation of illness is not genuine. In the case the petitioner as PW1 has stated in his evidence that Dr. Haneefa attached to the Lekshmi Clinic, Paravoor, was treating him previously. That may be the reason why he went to the Lekshmi Hospital, Paravoor for treatment. In the case the petitioner as PW1 has stated in his evidence that Dr. Haneefa attached to the Lekshmi Clinic, Paravoor, was treating him previously. That may be the reason why he went to the Lekshmi Hospital, Paravoor for treatment. According to me, there is no basis for the conclusion arrived at by the Additional District Judge that the petitioner deliberately absented himself from appearing before the court and giving evidence. I cannot also agree with the learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner filed the applications to protract the matter. As observed by this Court in Pokku v. Ammini,1987 (2) KLT 308, "ordinarily a litigant who approaches the court with a genuine and substantial claim or contention and who knows that he is likely to suffer heavily by his absences, may not purposely evade court merely with a view to try his chance by a petition under O. IX, R.9 or R.13. There may be cases where though the absence was not wilful or due to reasons beyond control, the party may not be able to offer an explanation which is fully convincing to the Court or prove the same satisfactorily. In such circumstances, there is wide discretion with the court in deciding what 'sufficient cause' is for the purpose of allowing or rejecting the prayer". The Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353, observed that there is no presumption that non-appearance is deliberate or on account of negligence or mala fides. In this case a 70 year old man swears before the Court that he could not appear before the Court as he was undergoing treatment in a hospital and produces a Medical Certificate to substantiate his contention. Why should the court distrust his version? 5. In G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, (2000) 3 SCC 54, the Supreme Court held that the expression "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" occurring in O. IX, R.13 CPC must be liberally construed, where the defence is reasonable, defendant approaches the court for setting aside the ex parte decree within statutory period and non-appearance is not mala fide or intentional. In this case the petitioner has moved the applications within the period of limitation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the non-appearance of the petitioner was mala fide or intentional. In this case the petitioner has moved the applications within the period of limitation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the non-appearance of the petitioner was mala fide or intentional. Under these circumstances the lower courts should have found that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Court. I see no reason why the applications should not be allowed. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and I.A. No. 493/01 in O.S. No. 720/98 and I.A. No. 492/01 in O.S. No. 734/98 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam are allowed. However I make no order as to costs.