JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, J. - Heard Sri Daya Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Factual matrix of the present case are that initially petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 117 of 2004 Devasthan Gram Sunni Pargana Balamau Teh. Sandila Vs. Rameshwar and another. On 30.04.2004 respondent No. 3 was impleaded as defendant No. 1 filed his written statement. Thereafter so it was decided ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No. 3, Hardoi. 3. Sri Rameshwa moved an application for recalling of the ex-parte judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 supported by an affidavit to which the petitioner filed objections, the trial court vide judgment and by order dated 18.01.2010 allowed the application moved by respondent No. 9 under order 9 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and recalled the ex-parte judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 passed in Regular Suit No. 117 of 2004. Aggrieved by the said facts, the petitioner filed a revision (Revision No. 4/2010) dismissed by judgment and order dated 29.07.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Hardoi. Hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners thereby challenging the said order. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in brief submits that the judgment and orders passed by the court below is illegal, contrary and there is no justification and reasons whatsoever to allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the order in questions is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 6. So far as the factual matrix of the present case are concerned petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction allowed judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 ex-parte. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No. 3 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contested by the petitioner-plaintiff by filing objection but the trial court has allowed the same by order dated 118.01.2010 on the payment of cost of Rs. 500/-, challenged by way of revision by the plaintiff-petitioner, dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2010. 7. 500/-, challenged by way of revision by the plaintiff-petitioner, dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2010. 7. The sole question which is to be decided and adjudicated in thepresent case is whether the action on thepart of the courts below are in accordance to the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as under:- "In view of the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is evident that in case 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. In case, the defendant 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, as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the Suit." 8. Further the important and significants words 'an order' to invoke the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC are:- (a) Satisfies the court (b) Prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing. 9. So, if the court on the basis of the material on record placed the defendant is satisfied that there is sufficient cause due to which he was unable/prevented from appearing in the Court of Law and ex-parte decree has been passed against him then the court concerned has been vested with the power to recall the same. 10. It is well established that the Court should take a liberal view on the question of "sufficient cause", and should lean in favour of viging hearing to both the sides. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions:- 1.Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another,1 2.Ramji Dass and others Vs. Mohan Singh, 2 3.Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another Vs. Mst. Katiji & others.1 11. Further in the case of Sandgram Singh (Supra), Supreme Court laid down as follows (paragraphs 16 to 17 as follows:- "(16) Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Further in the case of Sandgram Singh (Supra), Supreme Court laid down as follows (paragraphs 16 to 17 as follows:- "(16) Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of inter-pretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the verymeans designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. "(17) Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle. 12. In the present case, the court below believing the version of the respondent No. 5/defendant regarding non-appearance in the matter in question has allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act considering that the sufficient cause exists in favour of the respondents subject to payment of cost Rs. 500/- to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff, and direct the matter in question will be heard on merit. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find infirmity or illegally in the impugned orders under challenge, so the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.