JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) C.P.C. has been preferred by appellants-defendants against the order of learned Addl. District Judge, Bandikui passed on 17.5.2001 rejecting their application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal and necessary for its disposal are that respondents instituted a civil suit for specific performance of agreement for sale executed between the parties on 22.7.1997 in respect of the property described in para 2 of the plaint alleging that appellants had failed to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour despite repeated requests and service of legal notice upon him through their advocate. After service of summons on them, appellants-defendants engaged Shri Sudesh Chandra Gupta, Advocate to defend the suit who put in appearance before the trial Court on 18.12.1999 and also filed power on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and undertook to file power on behalf of defendant No. 1. But power was not filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 even after taking several opportunities for the same. He ultimately pleaded no instructions on 4.7.2000 whereupon the trial Court directed ex parte proceedings to be taken against them. After recording the evidence of plaintiffs the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 11.9.2000. The appellants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them. The application was ultimately dismissed vide impugned order which order is under challenge in this appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as also the record of the case. 4. It is not in dispute and is rather an admitted fact that summons of the suit were duly served on defendants. Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta, Advocate was engaged by them who appeared and filed power on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and understood to file power on behalf of defendant No. 2. But neither power was filed on his behalf nor the written statement was filed on behalf of defendants despite obtaining several opportunities for the same. Ultimately, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants pleaded no instructions on 4.7.2006. 2 and 3 and understood to file power on behalf of defendant No. 2. But neither power was filed on his behalf nor the written statement was filed on behalf of defendants despite obtaining several opportunities for the same. Ultimately, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants pleaded no instructions on 4.7.2006. So ex parte proceedings were ordered to be taken and the suit was decreed ex parte after taking evidence of plaintiffs. 5. Learned counsel for appellants has contended that the learned counsel who was engaged by defendants to appear to defend them, pleaded no instructions without informing about the date fixed in the case before or after the ex parte proceedings were taken against them. They are, therefore, prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the court. He has placed reliance on Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh & Ors., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 258 and Sushila Narhari & Ors. v. Nandakumar & Anr. (1996) 5 SCC 529 . 6. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order and has strenuously contended that the above cited cases are distinguishable on facts. He has, however, in the alternative submitted that in case the court is inclined to allow the appeal, the matter may be remitted back to the trial Court with the direction to dispose of the application afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. In this regard he has referred to the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Dr. Ramjilal, 1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 392 . 7. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the authorities cited at the bar. 8. In the case of "Malkiat Singh" (supra), the appellants had engaged a counsel to defend them in the suit filed against them. The counsel pleaded no instructions and the suit was proceeded ex parte and was ultimately decreed ex parte. The counsel neither informed this fact to the defendants nor the court issued notices to them. The defendants came to know of the ex parte decree only when they approached their counsel. They filed application to set aside ex parte decree within four days of the knowledge. In these facts and circumstances it was held that defendants cannot be said to be careless/negligent and the ex parte decree passed against them was set aside. 9. The defendants came to know of the ex parte decree only when they approached their counsel. They filed application to set aside ex parte decree within four days of the knowledge. In these facts and circumstances it was held that defendants cannot be said to be careless/negligent and the ex parte decree passed against them was set aside. 9. In the case of "Sushila Narhari" (supra) the suit for specific performance of agreement was decreed ex parte. The appellants moved an application to set aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed by the trial court and the order was affirmed by the High Court in revision. Then the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of special leave petition. In that case when the suit came up for trial, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants withdrew his power without notice to the defendants. The trial Court, therefore, directed the suit to proceed ex parte and ultimately decreed the suit ex parte. The application for condonation of delay of 40 days was refused. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the advocate who was appearing on behalf of defendants had committed dereliction in discharge of his duty to inform the client by registered post if there was any non-cooperation by them. The delay in making the application was condoned and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree were set aside. 10. In the instant case also the earned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants pleaded no instructions without informing them about this. If there was any non-cooperation on their behalf, the learned counsel ought to have given them registered notices before pleading no instructions. So keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the afore-mentioned authorities, the appellants cannot be said to be negligent or careless and they cannot be made to suffer for the default on the part of their learned counsel. This is also apparent that the parties have not been afforded an opportunity for leading their evidence with regard to sufficiency of the grounds for non-appearing in the court on the date fixed in the suit when the ex parte proceedings were ordered to be taken against them. This is also apparent that the parties have not been afforded an opportunity for leading their evidence with regard to sufficiency of the grounds for non-appearing in the court on the date fixed in the suit when the ex parte proceedings were ordered to be taken against them. In Rajendra Kumar's case (supra), the parties were not afforded an opportunity of leading their evidence and, therefore, this court while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the trial Court for deciding it afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. 11. In the result, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 17.5.2001 rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the appellants is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to decide the application afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence with regard to averments made in the application and in rebuttal thereof. Learned trial Court is expected to dispose of the application expeditiously but in any case not later than three months from the date being fixed for appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14.7.2003.Appeal allowed. *******