ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. Copy of the appeal with annexures be supplied to Shri Kotecha. 2. Heard. 3. The appeal is against the order dated 27-8-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 3/2002, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 has been rejected by the Court below. 4. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Against the order of Trial Court the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 20-A/2001, which was dismissed on 2-2-2002. It is stated that when the appellants/plaintiffs received a notice on 1-4-2002 issued from the Court of Tehsildar, Lormi only then they came to know that their appeal was dismissed. They contacted their Counsel on 10-4-2002 who informed that on 2-2-2002 he could not appear due to his sickness. Learned Court below finding that the cause shown for non-appearance and delay in filing application for restoration is not sufficient, rejected the application. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that so far as appellants are concerned they have done their best and are interested in prosecuting the suit that is why they have engaged two Counsel one from Bilaspur and another from Mungeli but both the Counsel did not appear on the date fixed. He submits that a party should not left to suffer because of the laps of the Counsel. He referred to a decision of Supreme Court in Rafiq and Anr. vs. Munshilal and Anr., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400, wherein it is held that, "under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the Court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the later appears in the matter when it is listed. And further that, "The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative". 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants had filed the application for restoration of the appeal under Order 9 Rule 9 thought it should have been under Order 41 Rule 19. Learned Counsel for the appellants referred to another decision in Sushila and others Vs. Sanjay Pahade and Ors., reported in 2000 (3) M.P.LJ. 24, where it has been held that, "the application rejected summarily by observing that it has been filed under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC where there is a specific provision for restoration of the appeal, hence the application was not tenable. Appellate Court should have treated it as an application under Order 41 Rule 19, CPC and should have proceeded to decide it on merits". 7. The 'sufficient cause' has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. Raizada and Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 54, where it has been held that, "The Courts have a wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The 'sufficient cause for non-appearance refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon other circumstances anterior in time" and that "the words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the erring party". 8. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, considering the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, the appeal is allowed. The Civil Appeal No. 20-A/2001 be restored subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- by the appellants/plaintiff within a period of one month from today. On such cost being deposited the same shall be paid to the respondents and the appeal shall stand restored and be heard on its own merits and be decided expeditiously. The parties and their Counsel shall co-operate and shall not give any opportunity requiring dismissal of the appeal in non-appearance. 9. Certified copy, as per rules.