This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 28th Feb 2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar. 2. The point involved in the present appeal is as to whether `Hartal, which have become a common feature in the valley now, provides a sufficient ground to a defendant against whom an ex-parte decree has been passed, to get the decree set-aside under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The respondent is owner of the R.C.C godown and a tin godown attached to it situated at Moulana Azad Road, Srinagar. The said godowns were leased out to the appellant by virtue of the lease deed on a monthly rent of Rs.2337/-. The respondent filed the suit for ejectment against the appellant with the prayer that the decree for ejectment of the said godowns be passed in his favour and against the appellant on 30.11.1991. The suit was assigned to Additional District Judge, Srinagar who issued summons through registered post to the appellant on 30th Nov 1991. The summons issued were for 26.12.1991, but the case could not be taken up on that date due to Hartal and when it was taken on the next date i.e. 27.12.1991 the court awaited the receipt of postal A.Ds. The case was fixed for 25.02.1992, but on that date too there was a hartal and the case was taken up on 29.02.92 when the case was again adjourned to 14th March 1992. On 14th March, 1992 also there was a hartal and the case was taken up by the court for hearing on 16th March, 1992. On that date the court passed a detailed order observing therein, that the appellant had been summoned through registered postal covers, but despite the service of summons to the defendants (i.e. appellants) as per the presumption of its delivery they have disassociated themselves from the proceedings of the case. Accordingly the court proceeded ex-parte against the appellant on that date and the respondent was asked to lead ex-parte evidence. On 8th May, 1992 Mr. Altaf Haqani Advocate, appeared for the appellant and filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. A copy of the application was given to the respondent for filing his objections which he did on 6th June 1992 and the application was posted for arguments on 18th July 1992. On 8th May, 1992 Mr. Altaf Haqani Advocate, appeared for the appellant and filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. A copy of the application was given to the respondent for filing his objections which he did on 6th June 1992 and the application was posted for arguments on 18th July 1992. The case could not be taken up on that date again because of the disturbed conditions and the Hartal. Thereafter the case was posted for 1st of August, 1992 but again due to Hartal and unavoidable circumstances the case could not be taken up. It was taken up on 4th August, 1992 and was adjourned to 3rd September 1992. Interim order of the trial court dated 3.9.92 shows that even on that date too there were a partial Hartal and that defendant was not present. The case was adjourned to 16th Sept. 1992 awaiting the presence of defendant. On 16th September 1992 there was again Hartal and the file was taken up on 19th Sept and adjourned to 25th September. On 25th September 1992, the defendant was not present and the case was adjourned to 14th of October, 1992. On that date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the clerk of the court fixed 29th Oct. 1992 as the next date. On 29th October the respondent was present while as the appellant was not present and the file was adjourned to 26th Nov. 1992. On that date the defendant was not present. The court observed that since the appellant was continuously not present since September 1992 it shows that he had no interest in pursuing the case, accordingly the ex-parte order passed on 16th March 1992 was kept in tact and the case was fixed for final arguments. The case was adjourned to 9th December 1992 for arguments but on that date also the case was not taken up and was later on taken up on 21st December, 1992 due to the fact that the Judicial Employees were on strike. On 21st of December, 1992 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the clerk fixed the next date on 6th Feb. 1993 as even on that date there was Hartal and next date being Sunday the case was later on taken up on 8th Feb. 1993. On that date the case was again adjourned to 22nd February and then to 13th March, 1993. 1993 as even on that date there was Hartal and next date being Sunday the case was later on taken up on 8th Feb. 1993. On that date the case was again adjourned to 22nd February and then to 13th March, 1993. On 13th March 1993 the file was adjourned to 3rd of April 1993, but on that date also the file could not be taken up due to Hartal/general strike and was taken up on 8th April 1993 and was later adjourned to 5th May, 1993. It was on 5th May, 1993 that the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. 4. On 13th May, 1993 the present appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and specifically mentioned that due to frequent Hartal courts remained closed on several hearings and the counsel for the appellants could not cause his appearance. The Additional District Judge, Srinagar who heard this application wrote a lengthy order and by means of the impugned order rejected the application of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. Additional District Judge, Srinagar in rejecting the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the present appeal has been filed. It is alleged that during the period under consideration the Valley of Kashmir was witnessing a serious turmoil which in particular have led the members of the minority committee to fled away from the Valley including the appellant. The Ld. Court below, according to the appellant has not applied its mind to the case properly and on improper exercise of its jurisdiction by presuming absence of sufficient cause has rejected the application. 5. Heard. Considered the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the interim orders passed by the learned trial court in the main case to show that these orders in itself are proof of the fact that there was sufficient cause for the appellant not to appear before the court on due dates as due to frequent Hartal he was not in a position to attend the court. He had engaged his counsel who too could not pursue the case and that even the court was not conducting effective proceedings and that due to frequent adjournments on the ground of Hartal, the appellant had no Knowledge of the dates fixed in case. 6. He had engaged his counsel who too could not pursue the case and that even the court was not conducting effective proceedings and that due to frequent adjournments on the ground of Hartal, the appellant had no Knowledge of the dates fixed in case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant had a duty to enquire dates from the court. According to him on 8th May, 1992 the appellants caused their presence before the trial court through their Counsel Mr. A. Haqani, Advocate and also filed an application for cancellation of ex-parte proceedings but later they failed to appear and did not join the proceedings due to which the ex-parte decree was passed against him. According to the learned counsel not withstanding the fact that the court could not proceed effectively in view of the Hartals, it was the duty of the appellant to enquire from the office about the dates fixed for the hearing of the case and remain present on the due dates fixed by the Court. He has further submitted that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte decree and in support he has relied on Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Pvt. Ltd., 1993 (1) C.C.C 635; Shanker Dass v. Hans Raj, KLJ 1973 part x 780; Indian Sewing Machines Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Sansar Machine Ltd. & Anr, 1993 (3) C.C.C 72; Gloria Chemicals v. R.K. Cables and Ors., AIR 1988 213; M/s Sangam Electronics v. M/s Hyuderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., AIR 1984 384; Rudramani Padhan v. State, AIR 1981 202; Tulsi Dass v. Safia Begum, KLJ 1997 116; Ram Narayan v. State Bank of Indore and Anr., 2002 (3) C.C.C 4; Basant Sing & anr v. Roman Catholic Mission, 2002 (4) CCC 93 (SC) and Mehmood Beg v. Mumtaz, 2001 SLJ 211. 7. On going through the various orders passed by the Court on different dates, a gist of which has been given above, I find that there was sufficient cause for the appellant in not attending the case on various dates and that the court below has both at the time of initiating ex-parte proceedings against the appellant as also at the time of passing ex-parte decree committed a grave error. The trial courts orders clearly show that even the trial court was helpless in proceeding with the case due to frequent Hartal and unavoidable circumstances. It could not take any effective proceeding on any of these dates. If such was the position then how did the court expect the appellant to remain present, and how the court have proceeded against him in ex-parte. 8. I find that right from the beginning the court has not adopted a just approach in dealing with the case. As said above the appellant was summoned through registered post to appear before the court on 26th December 1991. The case could not be taken up on that date because of Hartal. The case was fixed for 14th March but even on that date the case could not be taken up due to Hartal and the ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the appellant on 16th March, 1992. Obviously the appellant had not been summoned by the court for 16th March and proceeding ex-parte against him for his failure to attend the court on that date was patently illegal. No doubt the appellant appeared before the court on 8th May, 1992 through his counsel and filed an application for cancellation of ex-parte proceeding but even after that date the case was frequently adjourned due to Hartals. It was not taken up for any effective proceedings on the dates fixed by the Court. The last date of hearing when the defendant appeared through counsel was 16th June, 1992, the court after taking on record the objections of the respondents to the application for cancellation of ex-parte proceedings fixed the case for arguments on 18th July but the case could no be taken up on 18th July or 19th of July and was ultimately taken up on 20th of July, 1992. On that date the appellant was present through his counsel but the respondent was not present and the case was fixed for 1st August, 1992. Thereafter the appellant could not present himself and as said above the interim orders itself provide sufficient cause for such non-appearance. There is no material on file that when the case was taken up on 4th August and adjourned to 3rd Sept. the court conveyed the date to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant could not present himself and as said above the interim orders itself provide sufficient cause for such non-appearance. There is no material on file that when the case was taken up on 4th August and adjourned to 3rd Sept. the court conveyed the date to the appellant. Ordinarily under such circumstances it was the duty of the court to again issue a notice to the parties informing them about the next date of hearing fixed by the court. Proceeding ex-parte in such circumstances and later disposing of the case in ex-parte by final judgment and decree is not permitted by law. 9. Order 9 Rule 7 and Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide remedies to the defendants against whom exparte proceeding or ex-parte decree has been passed by the court due to their non-appearance. 10. Order 9 Rule 6 provides procedure when only plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing. If it is proved that the summons were duly served on the defendant the court may make an order that the suit be heard ex-parte. Remedy for such a defendant is given in Order 9 Rule 7 which provides procedure where such defendant appears on the next day fixed for hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance. The rule covers the case of the defendant who did not appear at all on the first hearing and the suit was adjourned after declaring him ex-parte. The rule is applicable if the defendant wants the court to retrace its steps and to allow him to file written statement. But if the defendants wants to proceed from the stage already reached he will have an absolute right without obtaining the courts permission to take part in the proceeding. There is much confusion in the sul-ordinate courts on such a procedure. But if the defendants wants to proceed from the stage already reached he will have an absolute right without obtaining the courts permission to take part in the proceeding. There is much confusion in the sul-ordinate courts on such a procedure. If any substantial proceedings has been taken by the court in absence of the defendant, the defendant has a right to ask the court to retrace its steps and set aside the ex-parte proceedings and allow him to join the proceedings right from the date when ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him and if in such case the defendant shows a good cause, the court has to set aside the ex-parte proceedings and allow the defendant to take part in the proceedings right from the beginning. If however, no substantial proceedings have been taken during the period ex-parte proceedings are taken and the defendant appear or if any proceeding has taken place but the defendant finds that the same is not adverse to him and he need not get it reversed, he may join the proceedings from the stage when he appears before the court and in such a case he need not to seek the permission of the court to take part in the proceeding. By his mere appearance he gets a right to join the proceedings. The court cannot in such circumstances burden him with costs as is being generally done in such cases by the sub-ordinate courts. Rule 7 invests the court with the widest possible discretion to accept the written statement even where a defendant who was declared ex-parte for absence assigns good cause. 11. The situation may arise where the defendant does not appear before the court till the court concludes the ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff and passes an ex-parte decree against the defendant. In such a case the remedy with the defendant lies in Rule 13 which provides that the defendant may satisfy the court that the summons were not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. If he succeeds in showing a sufficient cause, 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. If he succeeds in showing a sufficient cause, 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. Thus, where due to sufficient cause a defendant is prevented from attending the court, he may apply for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him. 12. Apex Court in Urgen v. Mahindera, AIR 1964 SC 993 has held that there is no material difference between good cause in Order 9 Rule 7 and sufficient cause in Rule 13. It has further been held in Union v. Ramacharan, AIR 1964 SC 215 that court in considering whether a party has established a sufficient cause, need not be over strict. What is or is not sufficient cause for non-appearance is a question of fact and it must depend on the varied and special circumstances of each case. The court has to deal with the particular facts of each case so the question cannot be decided with the aid of decisions unless they lay down any principle of universal application. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has cited authorities mentioned above but the facts and circumstances in all these cases are entirely different and therefore, the authorities are distinguishable. In none of these cases the court was confronted with problem as in the present case. The proceedings show that the period right from 20th July, 1992 to 5th May 1993 was disturbed period as no proceedings could take place due to unavoidable circumstances and frequent Hartals. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion, that it was difficult for the appellant to keep a track of the case and appear before the court on the dates fixed. 13. Ld. Additional District Judge, Srinagar has totally ignored these circumstances. He has instead of rendering substantial justice taken a hyper technical view. Interim orders of the court itself provide sufficient ground for setting the ex-parte decree passed by the court. 14. Under these circumstances the present appeal is accepted, the order impugned, ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 5th May, 1993 is set aside. Let the trial Court hear the case afresh and expedite the proceeding. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 13.12.04. Order accordingly.