ORDER N. ANANDA, J.—The learned trial Judge has set aside the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 5668/2000. Therefore, legal representatives of original plaintiff are before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for parties. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioner-first defendant, after engaging and Advocate has abandoned proceedings. He has not filed written statement. The suit was pending for over a period of 10 years. The first defendant had not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, petitioner has not made out sufficient cause to set aside ex parte decree. The learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545 (in the case of Parimal vs. Veena @ Bharti). 4. The learned Counsel for respondents would submit that respondent had engaged an advocate, however, he was not properly guided by his advocate. Therefore, respondent could not keep track of proceedings. The respondent had purchased the site from original plaintiff and he has constructed a house and he is living there. The original plaintiff had sought for a declaration that Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant is a fraudulent document; it was executed by an imposter. The plaintiff had also sought for possession of suit schedule house from I-defendant. In the circumstances, it looks improbable that petitioner has not acted diligently or he remained inactive and has abandoned proceedings. 5. At the inception, suit was filed by the original plaintiff. He had made an application under Order 33, Rule 1 CPC. It was registered in P.Mis.392/1991. For the reasons not apparent on record, proceedings in P.Mis.392/1991 were pending till the year 2000. Ultimately, plaintiff was directed to pay the court-fee. Thereafter, original suit was registered. The other defendants have not contested the suit. They had no subsisting interest in the property. The first defendant had not filed written statement. The original plaintiff died and his legal representatives (respondents herein) came on record. The evidence was recorded in the year 2007 and suit was decreed in the year 2010. The reasons for delay in decision of suit wherein, there was no contest by defendants are not apparent from records. 6. It is true that I-defendant having engaged an advocate was not diligent in prosecuting the case. The evidence was recorded in the year 2007 and suit was decreed in the year 2010. The reasons for delay in decision of suit wherein, there was no contest by defendants are not apparent from records. 6. It is true that I-defendant having engaged an advocate was not diligent in prosecuting the case. But the fact remains that subject matter of suit is an immovable property and reliefs sought for have devastating consequences on I-defendant. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge has condoned lapses on the part of defendant to set aside ex parte decree. 7. In the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545 , at paragraph 13, the Supreme Court has held as under: “Sufficient cause” is an expression which has been used in a large number of statutes. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been “not acting diligently” or “remaining inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. (Vide Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Lonand Grampanchayat vs. Ramgiri Gosavi, Surinder Singh Sibia vs. Vijay Kumar Sood; and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn.). In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court has held the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. 8. In the case on hand, defendant had engaged an advocate, thereafter, he had not participated in the proceedings and he had not even filed written statement. 8. In the case on hand, defendant had engaged an advocate, thereafter, he had not participated in the proceedings and he had not even filed written statement. However, considering the nature of reliefs sought for by original plaintiff, it looks improbable that defendant after having constructed a house in the suit schedule property would abandon litigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that defendant had not acted diligently and had remained inactive throughout. The learned trial Judge having regard to reliefs sought for and bearing in mind that subject matter of suit is an immovable property has held, it would be just and proper to allow parties to have a decision on merits of case. The learned trial Judge has granted costs of Rs. 10,000/- to compensate the inconvenience caused to respondents. 9. In the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with a direction to the learned trial Judge to decide the case on merits within a period of one year from today and I-defendant shall not commit further defaults in the proceedings and both parties shall extend their co-operation.