JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal by the Defendant No. 6 in Title Suit No. 01 of 1995 has been filed challenging the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedural Code. 2. Heard Mr. N. Mozhui, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/ Plaintiff. Also heard Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the trial court's records. 3. The gist of the case is that the Respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration of his title over certain areas of land on the ground that the land was allotted to his brother long back in the year 1968. The Plaintiff is claiming his title by way of inheritance after the death of his brother. However, in the year 1989 vide letter dated 21.08.1989 the Revenue Department allotted some land to the 5th Mile Model Village situated at Dimapur and the land covered under the said letter dated 21.08.1989 was allegedly a part of the land allotted to the Plaintiff's brother in the year 1968. Hence, the Plaintiff is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21.08.1989 in the suit. 4. Since the Govt. order was challenged by the Plaintiff, the State of Nagaland and its officers were also impleaded as Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the Chairman of the Model Village as Defendant No. 6. The State Defendants did not contest the suit. Eventually, the Defendant No. 6 also did not appear in the trial court to contest the suit. Hence, an ex-parte decree was passed on 19.03.1998. 5. The aforesaid ex-parte decree was put into execution. When the Defendant No. 6 received a notice in the execution case, he challenged the ex-parte decree in the High Court by way of filing writ petition, being numbered as Civil Rule No. 91(K) of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.08.1999 directing the Defendant No. 6 to file an appropriate application in the trial court itself under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 6. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.08.1999 directing the Defendant No. 6 to file an appropriate application in the trial court itself under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 6. The aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge was challenged by the Plaintiff in Writ Appeal No. 366 (K) of 1999. This writ appeal was also disposed of on 13.09.2001 without interfering the judgment of the learned single Judge. After the disposal of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal, the Defendant No. 6 filed an application under Order -IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the ex-parte decree. However, this application could not be decided for a long period since the pleadings became untraceable and missing from the record. Finally, the Defendant No. 6/ Appellant was directed to file his reconstructed application. Having done so, the application was heard in presence of the Plaintiff and the impugned order has been passed. 7. After going through the impugned order, it appears to me that the application under Order-XI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed basically on two grounds. Firstly, the applicant did not appear in the suit despite receiving summons and the applicant did not satisfactorily explain the reason for not contesting the suit for long three years. The second ground for dismissing the application is that the Defendant No. 6 did not file any application to condone the six months delay. 8. Shri Mozhui, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned District Judge has acted arbitrarily by way of allowing the Plaintiff to file his reconstructed written objection to the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the arguments were over and as such, it has to be inferred that the learned trial Judge had a pre determined mind to dismiss the application. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Plaintiff was also allowed to file his recast/amended plaint before disposing the application for vacating the ex-parte decree. With regard to non-filing of the condonation application, the learned Counsel submitted that the trial court has drawn a presumption in this regard in view of missing of the records. In other words, it was submitted that the condonation application was filed but it was untraceable. 9. With regard to non-filing of the condonation application, the learned Counsel submitted that the trial court has drawn a presumption in this regard in view of missing of the records. In other words, it was submitted that the condonation application was filed but it was untraceable. 9. On the other hand, Shri Jamir, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 1/ Plaintiff submitted that the learned District Judge has passed a reasoned order justifying dismissal of the application for vacating the ex-parte decree and there are no material to interfere with the impugned order. The learned senior counsel also submitted that there is nothing to dispute that the Defendant No. 6 had in fact received summons from the trial court and despite that he did not appear in the court for long three years and as such, the Appellant has no legal right to contest the suit or to get ex-parte decree vacated. 10. Since the State of Nagaland did not contest the suit, Mrs. Longkumer, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate did advance any argument in this appeal as well. 11. The admitted fact is that the pleadings became untraceable and went missing nearly for about ten years. Be that as it may, when the Defendant No. 6 was allowed to file his reconstructed application, purportedly filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said Defendant ought to have filed a copy of the condonation application also. However, Defendant No. 6 filed only reconstructed copy of the application, not supported by any condonation application. 12. At the same time in the written objection of the Plaintiff, no objection was raised about the maintainability of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the stipulated period. In the said objection, the Plaintiff virtually pleaded that the Defendant had not shown sufficient cause for not contesting the suit for long three years. 13. At this stage it may also be mentioned herein that in the judgment of the Division Bench, passed in Writ Appeal No. 366(K) of 1999, their Lordships have observed that the law of limitation does not apply in the State of Nagaland. However, if there is a gross delay and that too unexplained, certainly the court can take an exception. At this stage it may also be mentioned herein that in the judgment of the Division Bench, passed in Writ Appeal No. 366(K) of 1999, their Lordships have observed that the law of limitation does not apply in the State of Nagaland. However, if there is a gross delay and that too unexplained, certainly the court can take an exception. May be in view of the aforesaid observation, the Defendant No. 6 did not file any condonation application under the Limitation Act, 1963. 14. Coming to the question whether the Appellant had in fact received summons in the title suit before passing the ex-parte decree, it appears to me that the Appellant has admitted the fact of receiving summons from the trial court on two occasions. This fact has been admitted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application. However, in the aforesaid paragraphs it has been stated that on receipt of the summons, the Defendant had engaged a counsel and was wholly dependent upon his counsel and awaiting further instruction/ information. However, in the meanwhile the execution case was already filed in the trial court and thereafter the fact of ex-parte decree came to his knowledge. 15. It is true that the Defendant did not disclose the name of the lawyer nor filed any affidavit from the engaged lawyer to support his statement. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that the Defendant must have been diligent at least to enquire about the fate of his case by way of communicating with his counsel during long three years period. Having not done so, it can be considered as negligence on the part of the Defendant. At the same time, learned District Judge has also observed that the justice cannot be sacrificed for consideration of the procedural propriety. It has been restated in a catena of decisions that the courts should be pragmatic in condoning the delay or vacating the ex-parte decree and adopt a liberal attitude so that a party may not be unsuited from the case on technical defects and deficiencies. 16. Although the Defendant No. 6 appeared to be very casual and negligent in contesting the suit. However, considering the track record of the suit, the negligence of the Defendant can be ignored and condoned. 16. Although the Defendant No. 6 appeared to be very casual and negligent in contesting the suit. However, considering the track record of the suit, the negligence of the Defendant can be ignored and condoned. The order sheet shows that the learned trial Judge had once decided to proceed ex-parte and recorded the Plaintiff's evidence on 14.05.1996 and on the next date the court again decided to issue summons to the Defendant. Again vide order dated 08.07.1996 the court proceeded ex-parte and the judgment was pronounced in favour of the Plaintiff on 19.03.1998. 17. Admittedly, the judgment was pronounced after more than 2 (two) years of recording evidence. There is no explanation in the record as to why the trial Judge took such a long time in pronouncing the ex-parte judgment. This anomaly in the record is an addition to the fact that even after hearing the both sides upon the application of the Defendant No. 6 for vacating the ex-parte decree, the Plaintiff was allowed to file his reconstructed written objection. Before that the learned District Judge had also allowed the Plaintiff to file his amended plaint, substituting the Chairman of the Defendant No. 6 upon his death. In view of such abnormal conduct of the trial court it would not be proper to refuse condonation of the delay in contesting the suit after vacating ex-parte decree. Rather, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the Appellant to contest the suit. 18. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2010 as well as the ex-parte decree passed by the learned District Judge, Dimapur in Title Suit No. 01 of 1995 stands set aside. However, considering the negligence of the Defendant No. 6/ Appellant, the appeal stands allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only. 19. The cost shall be deposited in the trial court within a period of four week from today. The cost shall be paid to the Plaintiff, after obtaining proper receipt. In addition to the payment of cost, the Defendant No. 6 is further directed to submit his written statement on or within the aforesaid period and thereafter the learned trial court shall proceed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within 4 (four) months. Both the parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 25.04.2011 and receive further order. 20. Both the parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 25.04.2011 and receive further order. 20. As agreed upon by the learned Counsel for both sides, the status quo of the suit land as on today shall be maintained till disposal of the suit. 21. Registry is directed to return the LC Rs with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.